Save-A-Boat - The Forum for Plastic Classic Rebuilds!

The website http://www.anzam.com/howto_index_001.htm has some nice information on refurbishing fiberglass sailboats.

One tip that is unique is for non-skid decks. I would be curious to hear what others think of this technique.

I would be curious to hear what others think of this technique

It doesn't excite me very much. I will stick with grit in the paint. Their way is more work and I really don't see the benefits.

First thoughts: Why different grades of non-skid for inshore versus offshore work? What if I want to go offshore with my inshore boat? Or coastal cruise with my offshore non-skid? (okay, I am being silly but I didn't see much reason to take those techniques seriously)

More importantly, why would anyone want gelcoat instead of paint over a repair? I think they think too much. It isn't rocket science.

-Britton

Oh, and what does it say of the company when the "Current Project" has a tag on the bottom of the page saying that further work revealed the boat to be too far gone so the hull was chopped up and used for landfill? Shouldn't they just quietly move on to a new project rather than highlight their failures?

That website provides too much fodder for my over active sarcasm so I think I will just stop here...

JonnyBoats wrote:The website http://www.anzam.com/howto_index_001.htm has some nice information on refurbishing fiberglass sailboats.

One tip that is unique is for non-skid decks. I would be curious to hear what others think of this technique.

I've seen this sort of technique before. I think it's simply awful. It might be good nonskid, but it looks and feels terrible, and is tough to clean. I'd reserve this for working boats only; it's be right at home on the working deck of a lobster boat.

Beyond this, I have no comment.

Tim wrote:Beyond this, I have no comment.

Someday, I hope to be just like Tim.

-Britton

Oh, and what does it say of the company when the "Current Project" has a tag on the bottom of the page saying that further work revealed the boat to be too far gone so the hull was chopped up and used for landfill?

Yes, when I read that it struck me that no boat is "too far gone" for Tim;-)

That's definitely a peculiar way to go about applying nonskid. I really don't get it as it seems like an awful lot of work for an end product that looks like it was sneezed onto the boat.

There are so many alternatives, I can't fathom the logic of going that route.

I've seen this done on boats before - it doesn't look particularily great. The other problem is you have a pretty thick layer of gelcoat gooped onto your deck. Gelcoat doesn't stick very well, and is prone to chipping. Since the thickened, textured gelcoat is so thick, you end up with rather large chips coming out.

If applyed on a workboat (like Tim suggested), you would clean/grind the chip, and roll some more goop on - as you are only looking at applying nonskid, but on a pleasure boat, you want some aesthetic appeal.

I normally ignore remarks such as have been posted on this thread, but in this instance I feel a little knowledge, rather than relying on pure supposition, might be a good thing.

Britton wrote:

>It doesn't excite me very much. I will stick with grit in the paint. Their way is more work and I really
>don't see the benefits.

>First thoughts: Why different grades of non-skid for inshore versus offshore work? What if I want to go
>offshore with my inshore boat? Or coastal cruise with my offshore non-skid? (okay, I am being silly but
>I didn't see much reason to take those techniques seriously)

>More importantly, why would anyone want gelcoat instead of paint over a repair? I think they think too
>much. It isn't rocket science.

You obviously have never been on a deck awash with green water trying to gain a foothold on "production" type non-skid let alone one that has been painted. If you had, you would know that trying to stand on an "ice-rink" is very unsettling.

>Oh, and what does it say of the company when the "Current Project" has a tag on the bottom of the page
>saying that further work revealed the boat to be too far gone so the hull was chopped up and used for l
>andfill? Shouldn't they just quietly move on to a new project rather than highlight their failures?

Again, you make disparaging remarks without taking the time to absorb facts.

That project was far from being a failure (as you put it). We knew there were some blistering problems in the underwater portion of the hull but the deck was so bad that we had to attack that problem first so as to retain the topsides shape. Having done that we were able to remove the interior which in turn uncovered more gross hull delamination.

We were able to peel off, by hand, large sections of the hull exterior. Some pieces as big as 4' x 4'. The delam was at the boundary of a cloth layer and the second woven roving layer. It was obvious the hull had not been layed up correctly in the first place as the cloth layer had absolutely no resin penetration.

When we saw that some of the hull interior had exactly the same problem we realised that if all the delam was removed we would have a structure that wouldn't stand up under its own weight and the cost of fully reglassing it was prohibitive so the decision was made to scrap the boat.

In my 30+ years in the business I have never come across such a poorly laid-up hull !

As for leaving it on the website, we did that so hopefully others would learn from it.

>That website provides too much fodder for my over active sarcasm so I think I will just stop here...

No comment !

---------------
Tim wrote:

>I've seen this sort of technique before. I think it's simply awful. It might be good nonskid, but it looks
>and feels terrible, and is tough to clean. I'd reserve this for working boats only; it's be right at home on
>the working deck of a lobster boat.

We have had nothing but good comments on the process so perhaps what you've seen before is nothing like this one.

Due to its large pocket areas it is very easy to clean with a simple hose-down.

---------------
Jason wrote:

>That's definitely a peculiar way to go about applying nonskid. I really don't get it as it seems like an awful
>lot of work for an end product that looks like it was sneezed onto the boat.

Again, as you haven't seen it how can you make such a statement ?

>There are so many alternatives, I can't fathom the logic of going that route.

Two reasons... Effectiveness and cost.

---------------
Rick wrote:

>I've seen this done on boats before - it doesn't look particularily great. The other problem is you have a
>pretty thick layer of gelcoat gooped onto your deck. Gelcoat doesn't stick very well, and is prone to
>chipping. Since the thickened, textured gelcoat is so thick, you end up with rather large chips coming
>out.

Gelcoat when correctly applied over a correctly prepared substrate sticks *very* well. Our first use of this method was seven years ago. In that time that boat has made two return trips to Hawaii, in addition to normal local use. I last spoke with the owner 2 years ago and he reported that none of the surface has "chipped" or "broken off". The owner and delivery crews have all been extremely happy with its appearance and effectiveness.

The "thickener" used, Colloidal Silica (aka Cab-O-Sil), is not so much a thickener as a thixotropic anti-sagging agent. It does not induce brittleness in any degree, but does impart strength. If you've ever had to hand sand an Epoxy/Silica mix you'd know what I mean.

We were able to peel off, by hand, large sections of the hull exterior. Some pieces as big as 4' x 4'. The delam was at the boundary of a cloth layer and the second woven roving layer. It was obvious the hull had not been layed up correctly in the first place as the cloth layer had absolutely no resin penetration.

When we saw that some of the hull interior had exactly the same problem we realised that if all the delam was removed we would have a structure that wouldn't stand up under its own weight and the cost of fully reglassing it was prohibitive so the decision was made to scrap the boat.

In my 30+ years in the business I have never come across such a poorly laid-up hull !

Wouldn't a surveyor be able to identify large areas of gross hull delamination such as this prior to commencement of a major (and expensive) project? My surveyor sounded every inch of my hull by pounding on it with a special hammer. I think that's what he was checking for.

Brian, it seems you weren't the only one to have this problem. Note this quote from the Pearson Vanguard Page:

"They had definite construction short falls. Based on my experience with two different boats, the glass work in the keel area was not what it should be. In the case of our boat, we clipped a rock and crushed a small area at the lower leading edge of the keel. When they opened up the area, a fairly large area of dry glass was found as well as small pools of un-reinforced resin."

http://www.pearsonvanguard.homestead.co ... mment.html

Thanks for leaving the information about Vanguard #45 up on your website. It underscores some of the risks faced when choosing a project boat.

Jason wrote:

>That's definitely a peculiar way to go about applying nonskid. I really don't get it as it seems like an awful
>lot of work for an end product that looks like it was sneezed onto the boat.

Again, as you haven't seen it how can you make such a statement ?

>There are so many alternatives, I can't fathom the logic of going that route.

Two reasons... Effectiveness and cost.

Brian,

Welcome to the forum. We're a pretty friendly group here and we're certainly open to new ideas and creative solutions. We're not snobs, but we do love our boats and our combined experience is fairly impressive within the realm of classic fiberglass sailboats.

I'll stand by what I said though, regarding the use of gelcoat and colloidal silica formed into peaks and sanded into a non-skid pattern as an unusual and, to my mind, undesirable approach to nonskid. I think that it looks more like a work boat than a sailboat. I feel a sailboat is a thing of beauty and that anything that compromises its aesthetic is to be avoided. If you used it on a boat, then great - that's fine. I won't use it on mine and I'm unafraid to voice my opinion on the desirability of that application methodology.

It may be a cheaper way to apply nonskid. It may be effective. I just don't like it.

#218 wrote:

Jason wrote:


Brian,

Welcome to the forum. We're a pretty friendly group here and we're certainly open to new ideas and creative solutions. We're not snobs, but we do love our boats and our combined experience is fairly impressive within the realm of classic fiberglass sailboats.

I'll stand by what I said though, regarding the use of gelcoat and colloidal silica formed into peaks and sanded into a non-skid pattern as an unusual and, to my mind, undesirable approach to nonskid. I think that it looks more like a work boat than a sailboat. I feel a sailboat is a thing of beauty and that anything that compromises its aesthetic is to be avoided. If you used it on a boat, then great - that's fine. I won't use it on mine and I'm unafraid to voice my opinion on the desirability of that application methodology.

It may be a cheaper way to apply nonskid. It may be effective. I just don't like it.

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the welcome.

The only comment I have on your statements is if you have never seen this application how on earth can you make such statements about looks etc.

I'm just sorry I don't have photographs to show you how wrong you are.


Brian C

A30_John wrote:
Wouldn't a surveyor be able to identify large areas of gross hull delamination such as this prior to commencement of a major (and expensive) project? My surveyor sounded every inch of my hull by pounding on it with a special hammer. I think that's what he was checking for.

Hi John,

I had sounded the hull prior to purchase and that is how I knew there was some delam, mainly around the blisters. However when sounding you are looking for differences in "sound" and in this case the actual delam was so extensive that I was fooled into thinking the bad areas were only associated with the blistering.

Brian, it seems you weren't the only one to have this problem. Note this quote from the Pearson Vanguard Page:

"They had definite construction short falls. Based on my experience with two different boats, the glass work in the keel area was not what it should be. In the case of our boat, we clipped a rock and crushed a small area at the lower leading edge of the keel. When they opened up the area, a fairly large area of dry glass was found as well as small pools of un-reinforced resin."

I won't go into what I found when cutting up the hull but I must comment that the use of straight resin around encapsulated lead is not uncommon. It is used to fill all the voids between the lead casting and the glass molding. It does its job very well (stopping the lead from shifting) and there is nothing wrong with that practice.

I was once told, by someone who claimed to know, that Pearson had a habit of slotting a prototype into the production run if a hull was needed and I feel the Vanguard I had was one of those instances.

Brian C

brian c wrote:We have had nothing but good comments on the process so perhaps what you've seen before is nothing like this one.

Due to its large pocket areas it is very easy to clean with a simple hose-down.

You're right: it's possible I am envisioning something different. Have you any photos of your technique that might help visualize its effect better?

In response to bcooke, brian c wrote:You obviously have never been on a deck awash with green water trying to gain a foothold on "production" type non-skid let alone one that has been painted.

In making a statement like this on this forum, you are undermining your credibility in your other comments, particularly when you called others' opinions here "suppositions". Is not your statement above a supposition too?

I run a clean forum here, and everyone is entitled to post opinions. No opinion is ever wrong, even if you or others disagree with it. I respect your desire to rebut comments that you felt were unfair about a process that admittedly no one here seems to have seen, but I'd appreciate it if you tried to keep any of your comments from becoming--or even appearing to be--personal in nature. Facts to support your (or anyone's) point of view are the best way to go in this sort of situation. Anything else just comes off as overly defensive.

brian c wrote:I won't go into what I found when cutting up the hull

Why not? It sounds like it might be instructive to anyone who works on, owns, or loves old fiberglass sailboats.

In further review of this technique on your website, Brian, an additional question arose: have you done this technique on any boats other than the one whose owner requested that you help come up with a very aggressive nonskid pattern for his own needs?

Tim wrote: You're right: it's possible I am envisioning something different. Have you any photos of your technique that might help visualize its effect better?

As I said in an earlier post I wished I did have photos but I don't

In making a statement like this on this forum, you are undermining your credibility in your other comments, particularly when you called others' opinions here "suppositions". Is not your statement above a supposition too?

Based on my bluewater experience it is far from being a supposition. However why am I the one who has to defend against supposition and the originators don't ?

You wonder what experience ? Try 30,000+ bluewater miles under the keel for starters.

I run a clean forum here, and everyone is entitled to post opinions. No opinion is ever wrong, even if you or others disagree with it. I respect your desire to rebut comments that you felt were unfair about a process that admittedly no one here seems to have seen, but I'd appreciate it if you tried to keep any of your comments from becoming--or even appearing to be--personal in nature. Facts to support your (or anyone's) point of view are the best way to go in this sort of situation. Anything else just comes off as overly defensive.

Again why is it that I have to toe-the-line and others don't ?

Obviously ill-found sarcasm is acceptable in this "clean" forum and experienced based rebuttal/comments are not.

However, don't bother to reply as I hereby request that you remove me from your register. I won't ruffle anyones feathers again.

Brian C

Tim wrote:In further review of this technique on your website, Brian, an additional question arose: have you done this technique on any boats other than the one whose owner requested that you help come up with a very aggressive nonskid pattern for his own needs?

I have not applied it to any other boat, however I have had a number of email contacts from others who have and who have been very happy with the result.

It will definitely be applied to the Fuji 32 I'm currently rebuilding in preparation for my intended future solo circumnav.

Brian C

I'm sorry you seem to have taken this all so personally. No one is being held to any different standards here.

Anyway, I won't bother to discuss this any more, as you request.