Any Surveyors? - Am I being set up? 7 photos

[Danny Jo]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . So no, he is not ripping you off - he is simply covering his back. You asked him if it was OK. No its not, but he simply can not say its OK to botch it, even if it is.

In other words: ask a professional, you will get the professionals answer with built in liability clauses. Ask an amateur, and you will probably get away with it. No liability accepted for my advice of course - I am just an amateur!

[/ QUOTE ] I think it is a bit unfair to tar all professionals with the same brush (that of an excessively defensive pursuit of zero risk to themselves).

Before I decided that Freestyle was the boat for me, I went over her as I imagined that a surveyor would, and discovered a number of signs on which I needed reassurance before going ahead with the purchase. I also needed a survey for insurance purposes, but experience with house surveyors had taught me that what makes a surveyor worth his salt is the will and ability to distinguish the trivial from the serious. A surveyor who is concerned only with covering his back can be worse than useless, particularly if he or she produces a report that obliges you to undertake expensive work an account of a problem that a more experienced surveyor might dismiss as cosmetic.

I'll give one example - my pre-purchase inspection of Freestyle in 2005 revealed this apparent sign of movement between the leading edge of the keel and the hull:

I mentioned this and other concerns to a surveyor chosen on the basis of his reputation as a man of judgement. I was pleased to see that these concerns were specifically addressed in his report. He did not see any problem with the keel and its fastenings. Moreover, when I pressed the question further, asking "shouldn't I get some of the bolts removed to check for corrosion", he answered to the effect that I could if I wished, but he wouldn't recommend it.

That in my view is what professional advisers are for - to use their experience and knowledge to make the kind of risk assessment one would make for oneself if one had the same experience and knowledge.

 

[absit_omen]

[ QUOTE ]
That in my view is what professional advisers are for - to use their experience and knowledge to make the kind of risk assessment one would make for oneself if one had the same experience and knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, not everyone has your integrity.

 

[oldharry]

I was not really intending to tar professionals - or anybody else. My point was that if you ask a professional surveyor, you are paying him to tell you what is wrong. If the A/F coat is too thick, and is lifting in places, then he has to say so, and to suggest the remedy. If there is a crack at the back of the keel - unless he KNOWS from his experience and training what is wrong - then he would not be acting properly if he did not make suitable (and expensive!) recommendations about dealing with it. In other words if he sees a fault, he has a duty to report it to the owner. If he does not, and problems arise, then the owner can quite legitimately hold him accountable.

 

[Richard10002]

The surveyor has confirmed that the keel is not dislodged, and that a good sanding and spot priming should provide a good enough surface for the antifoul. The rust on the keel needs grinding off etc. and he said that it would be a good idea to rake out the gap and put a bead of sikaflex 292 in it, (but only after I mentioned it - he would have been happy if the gap was merely primed and antifouled.

HOWEVER - he advised that the top of the keel bolts and backing plates had lost too much metal to rust, and that they should be replaced - I'm going to get the yard to do this.

He also suggested that several of the screw bolts holding the deck to the hull are loose and he thinks some of the nuts may have come off, or the bolts sheared - how I get at those is going to be a game in itself - will probably involve making holes in the top of lockers and stuff.

Also, (something I knew), some of the pieces of teak covering the screws have gone missing. These need replacing to stop water getting into the core.

So it seems that the initial worries were unfounded, but the survey has opened a can of worms, (which it was bound to).

Thanks for all the thoughts and advice,

Richard

 

[Anonymous]

Basically good news about the keel. Presumably the keel bolts are not stainless and probably for good reason. I suggest that when you have them replaced by the yard that you get the correct spec from MOA and maybe even DHL out the correct bolts (and plates) for free-issue to the yard. Can't advise on the deck fixings though would be interesting to hear whether they are stainless and have failed due to crevice corrosion. MOA should have some tips?

The plugs in the teak deck...given that you want to make a quick getaway I wonder whether some kind of silicone filler would suffice until you get her back home? It's not a suggestion as I don't know if that would work but you might ask on the forum, in a specific thread.

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically good news about the keel. Presumably the keel bolts are not stainless and probably for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are replacing the studs with Mild Steel - they initially wanted to use Stainless, which they say they always use, but I asked if they could use mild steel, and they are doing it that way. They want to use S/S for the backing plates and nuts, which are open to air.... I'm presuming that's OK?

Richard

 

[fireball]

hmm - I would stick to the same type metal throughout an application - mild steel bolts - mild steel nuts etc ..

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically good news about the keel. Presumably the keel bolts are not stainless and probably for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are replacing the studs with Mild Steel - they initially wanted to use Stainless, which they say they always use, but I asked if they could use mild steel, and they are doing it that way. They want to use S/S for the backing plates and nuts, which are open to air.... I'm presuming that's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]Surely High Tensile Steel, not mild steel? I would use the same material for the backing plate, as well.

I would ask Moody's (or the MOA) for the correct bolt spec and free issue them....send them DHL in a Jiffy bag then there can be no mistake (put a couple of centre pops on each bolt head if you don't trust them, to ID them). If Moody's told me stainless, I'd go for stainless.... Moody's engineers were OK and had a good reputation. You could easily have a plate made up at a local metalshop in a couple of hours....look in Yellow Pages. All you need is a sketch. DHL that with the bolts.

 

[Chris_Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically good news about the keel. Presumably the keel bolts are not stainless and probably for good reason. I suggest that when you have them replaced by the yard that you get the correct spec from MOA and maybe even DHL out the correct bolts (and plates) for free-issue to the yard. Can't advise on the deck fixings though would be interesting to hear whether they are stainless and have failed due to crevice corrosion. MOA should have some tips?

The plugs in the teak deck...given that you want to make a quick getaway I wonder whether some kind of silicone filler would suffice until you get her back home? It's not a suggestion as I don't know if that would work but you might ask on the forum, in a specific thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the subject of stainless steel keel bolts, I saw the keel taken off an very elderly Westerly Centaur the otherday. They had clearly been leaking, but there was not a trace of any crevice corrosion pitting. Perhaps the leaks were so bad, that the water was quite oxygenated!

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically good news about the keel. Presumably the keel bolts are not stainless and probably for good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are replacing the studs with Mild Steel - they initially wanted to use Stainless, which they say they always use, but I asked if they could use mild steel, and they are doing it that way. They want to use S/S for the backing plates and nuts, which are open to air.... I'm presuming that's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]Surely High Tensile Steel, not mild steel? I would use the same material for the backing plate, as well.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hi David,

I dont really know what I mean, but am following the various bits of info that we glean here and there - I sometimes worry that a Little knowledge is a bit dangerous, but I'm reasonably confident on the mild steel thing.....

The following is an extract from an article in the MOA Technical Library:

"The standard Moody method of keel construction and attachment (apart from a few boats with lifting keels) is a cast iron fin keel or twin keels attached by mild steel studs and nuts resting on mild steel backing plates in the bilges. The joint between the keel and hull is sealed with Sikaflex.

The mild steel nuts and backing plates are prone to surface rust, despite being partly protected by a coat of gelcoat or ‘gelwash’ during construction. Most posts to the MOA Infoexchange on the subject of keel fixings relate to this rust and methods of treating it, and the question of whether mild steel rather than stainless steel is the appropriate material for keel fixings."

Several other articles about keel bolts also suggest that Mild Steel is the stuff.

e.g.

" I was told by David Moody that the mild steel bolts are better. I cannot remember his explanation, but do remember his saying that they have never had one fall off. I am sure that mild rather than stainless is not for cost saving. "

It seems that there are 14 of these studs and I am reasonably happy that the boatyard are capable of making them up.

FYI - I'm no longer dealing with the Boatcare people from the marina - they blew me out when I approached Manoel Island Yacht Yard to do the work on the keel bolts and some fibreglassing to a structural beam. Not actually sure whether they will let me back in the marina /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif - I'll suss that out over the next few days.

Thanks for the thoughts - always welcome

Richard

 

[Anonymous]

Well, the subject is complicated but we can cut through some of the 'magic'.

Mild steel is a cheap, ductile, not very brittle steel made with fairly low carbon and without other metals alloyed. It is not very strong (low tensile strength) but it bends and absorbs shocks very well -- albeit by being elastic, and distorting. If you have enough bolts of an appropriate diameter, mild steel would be a good choice for keel bolts. You would be advised to follow the suggestions for corrosion inhibition.

Higher tensile (stronger and more brittle) steels are made by adding more carbon, some sulphur and some other metals as an alloy in small quantities. These are hugely stronger than mild steel bolts but they are more brittle. Ditto corrosion.

Stainless steel (316 would be the usual choice) is an alloy that can suffer the big disadvantage of corrosion in water when there is no oxygen present. These bolts tend to give way suddenly which is why many marine engineers refuse to use them for critical underwater applications such as keel bolts and mooring equipment.

Whether you should be using mild steel (with its advantage of higher ductility and lower brittleness) or a higher tensile steel (stronger but more brittle) will be a choice that the naval architect made when designing your boat. The naval architect will have sized the bolts and put enough in to be adequately strong in all conditions.

So, if Moody's say mild steel (and you're sure that they have this right) then mild steel it is! If talking to Moody's you might just ask if they mean mild and not a higher tensile steel -- you can buy a vast range of different materials. Saying 'steel' is a bit like saying 'ale'.

Go with what Moody's tell you, at the end of the day. They designed the yacht and they did the stress calcs.

If you trust the new boatyard and if they are happy to put mild steel studs in (and there are 14 of them!) then if it was me I would go with that. I would also ask for the mild steel backing plate in accordance with Moody's recommendations. No reputable boatyard is going to get the hump by being asked to follow the original designer's design.

You're having a really bad time of it down there.....is Janet with you or are you by yourself? Skype or call anytime.

David

 

[Richard10002]

Hi,

Only got here today, alone. Janet wouldn't be happy in the dust and dirt of a boatyard... particularly when the yard starts work at 7.30am, so I will have to be up /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It's not such a bad time.... the perils of owning a boat..... challenges not problems... etc..

My bad time will end up with us being anchored in an idyllic bay in Greece, (possible Nidri), a few weeks from now, (Janet hasnt enjoyed Malta and will join me in Greece /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). Other people are having to contend with much worse than that.

 

[Heckler]

Richard
Too late now but imho you have been sucked down a path by all offering well meaning advice.
Bottom line
surveyor he said keel ok, not moved.
the rusted bolts would imho have lasted till you got back.
the talk about different spec bolts is a diversion, a thread drift. not relevant, mild steel is original material, why be bothered to discuss other materials? as i said red herring.
you could have, as i said earlier, scraped, hammerited, sikaflexed, antifouled and been back in blighty at no great cost!
sorry for being an old cynic!
Stu

 

[Skyva_2]

Richard, the Moody keel bolts are definitely mild steel, sorry can't quote the spec but Phil Holloway will know. Plates and nuts also; make sure they are finished with gelwash or similar.

Moodys did not use stainless due to the crevice corrosion possibility mentioned above.

 

[Anonymous]

Stu -- have a look back on the thread. The surveyor OKd the keel but said the bolts needed changing so Richard told the yard to go ahead. The yard said they'd use stainless but Richard asked here and the consensus was use what Moody recommend. Which is what he's doing. I'd have done what Richard did. If the surveyor says too much bolt head lost to rust, would you sail her from Malta to Blighty? And the crew? I don't think he had any alternative, morally, legally or from the POV of the insurers.

 

[Heckler]

Prob is the definition of rust, as fatipa found out when he drew stingos bolts, they look, to the layman, terrible, but when out the realisation is that the surface rust looks worse than it is. Dont forget surveyors will always cover their arse. I wouldnt mind a few pix of the drawn bolts to see if I am right.
Stu

 

[Anonymous]

Richard wasn't there to take a view -- in any case he's not a marine engineer -- the boatyard had flagged a problem and the surveyor had confirmed it. I can't think what else he could or would have done in the face of professional opinion that the keel bolts needed changing. I don't think he could have walked away from it even if he was sure, which he probably wouldn't have been. At least in the process of changing the bolts they will all be pulled up again and if the surveyor was wrong about the keel seating then that will also be solved automatically when the new bolts are tightened up. Had to be done sometime very soon from the sound of it, anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

You've (both) had more than enough to contend with in the last year. Shame you've had this unpleasantness.

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
Prob is the definition of rust, as fatipa found out when he drew stingos bolts, they look, to the layman, terrible, but when out the realisation is that the surface rust looks worse than it is. Dont forget surveyors will always cover their arse. I wouldnt mind a few pix of the drawn bolts to see if I am right.
Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu,

You are right, and I thought the same as you - i.e. not really a big deal, and I am sure they would have survived for years. I've taken some pix, so will try and post them tomorrow.

The problem was that these rusty nuts and plates, and stud tops, are a common issue with Moodys, and it plays on the mind. So... when I am kind of drawn into having a survey, (your keel is dislodged!!), and the keel bolts are highlighted, I dont really have a choice other than to resolve the issue. I am sure the surveyor would say the studs are OK, but the tops are rusted, and the threads are iffy where they are rusted, so the nuts cant be slackened or tightened.

I am wondering if an annual job should be to slacken, grease, and tighten the nuts, with a torque wrench.

I think this was a job that was always going to have to be done... and it will now not be an issue on a buyers survey, (if I get a buyer when I get back to Blighty /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks for the input

Richard

 

[poter]

Hi Richard, I have been following the thread & have had some experience of Moody Keel challenges, my M 30 also had a similar problem, Shady Pics, (by the by the pic 81 is incorrect....thats not new paint but 27 year old Moody gel coat - impressive!)
the surveyor recommended that the bolts were changed & the keel joint was reapplied, (covering his backside?)that was done with MS bolts that I got in Plymouth, in fact the original supplier to Moodys boat yard, sadly no longer in business.
One problem though.... 2 of the bolt heads were very difficult to get out & the engineer & myself spent many hours in removing them, if I had the time again I would check that I could - a/ make sure that all the bolts are accessible & able to get a large enough wrench on them & b/ make sure they are well primed with anti rust at least 4 to 6 applications. I also removed the plates which on Shady was a mistake, as I had to re glass them, again I should have left them alone.

Moodys were very helpful & they did say that they were doing a method statement as they were getting a few of these now, not too sure if they ever did, maybe worth a check with MOA.

Finally - the effort of replacing the bolts may or may not have been worth it but the nights were much easier to sleep on-board....
good luck & keep us up to date & some more pics.

Off to Libya next week, so your thoughts on Malta are appreciated, as its the closest place with a bar & I am going to get Shady Too down there.

Poter