So you buy a 40 yr old boat................

[Ludd]

Stand by for loads of posts extolling thick grp from the days when they padded it out with anything from chalk to slate dust! The reality of course is that the construction quality of equivalent boats made today is far better just as it is for everything else from cars to tv sets. We make technical progress.

Anyway, moving on from there before I get lynched by MAB owner. The main problem you will have is that just like houses are all about the fitment of internals and finishing, so boats are about more than the hull. And all these boat fittings will have worn over the years. Some will have been replaced, and some will have been bodged by owners who could afford the buying price of the boat but not the maintenance costs. Most other worn out bits will still be there. And replacements for a big old boat cost much the same as they do for a big new boat - you might buy an old Ferrari for the cost of a new Ford but the spares prices wont be the same!

Design has moved on a great deal since the 60s. Many designs from that period were simply wooden boats made in grp and so incorporating all the weaknesses that were forced on the designer by using wood. Long keels are a good example of that!

So whilst it's possible to buy an old boat in really good nick, it's more likely to break your heart and your wallet. Certainly my experience has been that the cheapest boat to own that I ever had was a new small one. And it was the boat that gave me the most sailing time since I had little or nothing to maintain. All the others showed signs of previous owners who didnt want to spend or couldn't afford to maintain at the correct standard using a yard and werent that practical themselves.

Do you need a survey? Yes you do - if only to protect you from yourself. It's so easy to get boat buyers goggles and to overlook the obvious problems. Even with a surveyor I've talked myself into unwise decisions - God knows what I might have bought without one.

NOT having a pop---genuine question!
What happened to the Starlights(35s I think ) that were virtually falling apart? Did the owners get any redress?

 

[electrosys]

What's the worst that can happen??

I am looking at a few yachts right now, and the type and price that I can afford are all from the late 60's to late 70's. I am told by many that the 'old uns' were built like tanks (!)......

Engines can be replaced, rigging renewed, etc etc............but what about the superstructure?

Any thoughts anyone?

Chox

P.S. Is a survey really worth it?

If you're talking grp - then one thing to look out for is 'the flexible deck'. Quite often decks are supported by wooden stringers, which in turn are encased in fibreglass.
Some manufacturers then used these stringers to support deck fittings. All is well, providing the sealant used remains intact, but should the sealant loosen in use, then water - often rainwater - finds it's way into the stringer 'encasement' from which it can't escape. Rot will follow in due course, followed by a weakening of the deck support.
Replacing such stringers is a major exercise. You may wonder how I come to know all this ...

 

[kesh]

good when someone else posts a thread about something i had been thinking about.

i have a related question about the dangers of older boats and surveys that i might put here: if a surveyor misses a major problem, does a buyer have any redress against the surveyor?

 

[gavin400]

Now that is a sweeping statement. I'm now very concerned about the survey that I commissioned from Survey One. What do you know that I don't?

Regards
Donald

Had a survey by Survey One last year which stated boat was suffering from extensive osmosis and that 'there was little alternative than to have hull gel peeled and epoxied'.

Having been suitably scared by the survey I got the hull grit blasted and discovered no evidence of osmosis.
I then applied Gelshield system (so have now got a lovely smooth hull below the waterline).

Boat is an early 70's 24 footer so costs of grit blasting were significant in relation to value of boat.

Survey 4 years previously (by a different company) made no mention of osmosis.

In conclusion would use Survey One again.


Gavin

 

[gavin400]

Meant to say - would not use Survey One again

 

[chockswahay]

good when someone else posts a thread about something i had been thinking about.

i have a related question about the dangers of older boats and surveys that i might put here: if a surveyor misses a major problem, does a buyer have any redress against the surveyor?

Hi Kesh, it's funny you should say that......... The two surveys that I have had (one in 2004 and one recently) have both been quite informative but in each case there was a 'truckload' of warnings and caveats suggesting that equipment was inspected but not tested and that specific advice should be sought from a 'specialist'

Now, whilst that all sounds reasonable enough, the specialists cover electrical, rigging, engine, gas..............so apart from the hull tell me what's left !!

I kinda feel that I could do just as good a job myself! (whoa, hard hat on for incoming flak!)

Regarding the matter of 'redress' I would not be surprised if that was difficult to enforce unless it was not something that the surveyor had suggested a 'specialist' look at.........................going round in circles here??

Any way, thanks to everyone for the valued contributions

Chox

 

[Bosun Higgs]

NOT having a pop---genuine question!
What happened to the Starlights(35s I think ) that were virtually falling apart? Did the owners get any redress?

The story as I understand it! There were, I believe , 6 of them in succession and they were mostly the 39. The problem was incorrect injection of the foam between the hulls (by a new subcontractor to Bowman) giving them the hungry dog look. At least 2 of the boats had the outer hull removed, foam stripped off , and then replaced under surveyor supervision - the owner of one of them is delighted with his boat, though I admit it would make me nervous.

I believe that Bowman went bust cos they couldnt handle the cost, so I doubt that owners got redress though I do not know.

But the pop you werent making ;-) is of course correct - they are modern boats (still being made by Rustler) and a small batch were badly made. My own gut feeling, based on a career in mass manufacturing, is that the basic quality of mass produced boats like Bav/ Bendytoy will be higher than the small volume boats like mine or the Swedes. But when I say "quality" I'm using the word in the manufacturers sense of consistency boat to boat and conformity with what they had decided to build, and not issues like design or hull thickness. Manual involvement = variability. Automation = quality

I'm rambling now but whilst I've started I might as well go for broke. I have mixed views about the Sadler type of construction used in the Starlight ie the inner lining and the foam. On a day to day basis it is good with much better insulation and a clean interior. But if you want to do anything like replace a clutch, it's a PITA so personally I would prefer a single skin grp hull . The beauty of the Starlight is the Stephen Jones design both in terms of layout of the cockpit and deck, and the performance of the hull. You'll get owners who sing the praises of the most dreadful old tubs, but this is one boat I have owned which really is a first class sailer and lives up to the rave reviews it got when launched.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

i have a related question about the dangers of older boats and surveys that i might put here: if a surveyor misses a major problem, does a buyer have any redress against the surveyor?

Depends on whether a conscientious surveyor doing a professional job would have spotted it. Just as with a house survey you cannot expect a surveyor to take the boat to bits to find hidden problems.

But with that proviso, yes you do have redress. I was compensated on the current boat because the surveyor missed some cosmetic damage to the mast and the toe rail. The fact that I should have spotted these defects if my eyes had been open made no difference.

 

[Fire99]

My boat is around 40 years old and the hull is without a doubt.... thick. Only drawback i've found is my depth transducer has quite high losses through it.

Mine came with a 2 year old engine (ok an outboard in a well but hey) and new standing rigging.
Paintwork on deck is rubbish but that can be dealt with.

Insurance is fine. Fully Comp and ony a self-cert required on condition.

It's all about condition and how much you want to pay, but I definitely wouldn't rule-out an older boat.

 

[Stemar]

[cynic]
I bought Jissel (1979 Snapdragon 24 without a survey and have never found anything wrong that one would have picked up. I haven't seen many surveys, but the ones I have seen have 16 pages of arse covering, about a page of stuff that anyone with a bit of knowledge would have picked up and three more pages of stuff that's either irrelevant or common sense, but will mean your insurer won't cover you until you spent a small fortune. Osmosis is a favourite; a high moisture reading is often interpreted as meaning the boat has osmosis when, actually she was in the water an hour ago and hasn't dried out yet.
[/cynic]

 

[sprucegoose]

Experience

Stemar, are you commenting from a survey you have had or is it someone else's experience?
If the surveyor reports on what they see i.e. on facts not opinions,in a manner understood by the reader then they will have gone a longway in satisfying their client.
High moisture readings do not equate to osmosis, there are many other factors to consider.
The presence of osmosis in GRP boats are always there in particular GRP boats which have been around along time. It is not a real problem until it becomes an issue which affects the structure of the hull.
As an owner I would like to know the condition of the hull and I assume other owners would too!

 

[Avocet]

...But the pop you werent making ;-) is of course correct - they are modern boats (still being made by Rustler) and a small batch were badly made. My own gut feeling, based on a career in mass manufacturing, is that the basic quality of mass produced boats like Bav/ Bendytoy will be higher than the small volume boats like mine or the Swedes. But when I say "quality" I'm using the word in the manufacturers sense of consistency boat to boat and conformity with what they had decided to build, and not issues like design or hull thickness. Manual involvement = variability. Automation = quality

OK, but I think there are probably other factors too. Whilst I'm by no means blind to the virtues of modern designs (I've been on 25 footers with lots more room below than Avocet!), I think it's also true to say that the makers of older boats weren't under the cost pressures that modern "mass-producers" are under. I think that (like all consumer goods) yachts cost a smaller percentage of average income these days than they used to. I have a mate with a Sadler and it's a dmaned fine boat. I like the warmth, lack of condensation and "unsinkable-ness", but it's nice not to have to worry about where I'm going to put my rope clutches (or any kind of fitting, in fact) on Avocet!

 

[stav]

Manual involvement = variability. Automation = quality

Hope you meant 'consistent quality' as this could be down to the minimum quality or up to a maximum quality. Personally due to the variability of sailing a good hand made product must be desirable as long as the weakest element is to a sufficient standard, what I mean is if the hull needs to be 8mm thick then as long as the thinnest bit is 8mm this has got to be good.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Hope you meant 'consistent quality' as this could be down to the minimum quality or up to a maximum quality. Personally due to the variability of sailing a good hand made product must be desirable as long as the weakest element is to a sufficient standard, what I mean is if the hull needs to be 8mm thick then as long as the thinnest bit is 8mm this has got to be good.

What I said was " But when I say "quality" I'm using the word in the manufacturers sense of consistency boat to boat and conformity with what they had decided to build, and not issues like design or hull thickness. Manual involvement = variability. Automation = quality"

But have you ever heard of the hull failing on a modern boat? No- neither have I. And whilst they are generally thinner, much of that is because the laminates are much better and finite element analysis software allows thickness to be put where thickness is needed rather than everywhere because they simply didnt know better. As Uffa Fox said " weight only has merit in a steam roller"

 

[stav]

But have you ever heard of the hull failing on a modern boat? No- neither have I. "

Well actually.......... I did look in to a cheap boat that had serious delamination between the foam and the GRP. I believe it was scrapped in the end. It was american I think. Also some one once asked in the PBO ask the expert about soft areas in a foam or balsa cored hull. The advice I think that what was given sail it until it was unsafe and then scrap it. I still disagree that automation=quality it does not but it does give consistency to the level set by the person programming the system, probably set to tolerances given by the designer/manufacturer.

As for excess weight in a boat I could not agree more, but there are limits on how important that statement is. My concern would be whether the weight is saved in the cause of better sailing performance or reduced materials and hence cost.

Happy just to accept we disagree though.

 

[kesh]

What I said was " But when I say "quality" I'm using the word in the manufacturers sense of consistency boat to boat and conformity with what they had decided to build, and not issues like design or hull thickness. Manual involvement = variability. Automation = quality"

curious that they to define the noun by the adjective and then dispense with the adjective. with language like that how is one to tell consistent poor quality from consistent good quality?

 

[Bosun Higgs]

You dont Kesh. Language is far too woffly for that purpose. Instead you use numbers. No "good" no "bad" just failure rates, properties and deviations.

Adjectives? Whats them?

 

[Avocet]

Weren't there a load of Bavs that needed re-skinning recently because of a problem with the hull laminate? I'm sure there was a burst of interest in the yachting press a year or two ago. Might have been some other make though.

I think that one disadvantage of better "consistency" (I'm not going to say "quality"!) is that if one fails, then the rest of the batch are likely to. Avocet's topside gelcoat failure is a good example. Clearly she was a "Friday night" boat in the gelcoat department! As far as I know no other boat of her type has done this. On more "productionised" boats, if there's a fault in one, then it usually manifests itself in all the boats of that batch (if it's a production fault) or simply "all the boats" if it's a design fault!

 

[kesh]

You dont Kesh. Language is far too woffly for that purpose. Instead you use numbers. No "good" no "bad" just failure rates, properties and deviations.

Adjectives? Whats them?

i remember saying this very point to you when you said there was no research into races being superior or inferior to each other

 

[Bosun Higgs]

So we agree then! Excellent