Westerly Falcon hull problems?

[Stephan&Beth]

Evening!

We looked at a Westerly Falcon with below hull -- I'm wondering if you can help explain both cracks between hull and keel not meeting up but moving in different directions? Nobody could explain this properly so far -- the keel was completely redone about 2 years ago. Is this something to worry about?

Thanks!

 

[pvb]

Save your time and money, look elsewhere. Loads of boats for sale.

 

[ashtead]

Seems strange for a Westerly . Would this result from hitting something? clearly wiser to look elsewhere as pvb has said as it's not a rare breed but presumably if the price was cheap enough then any remedial works would be covered by the low acquisition costs so expert advice needed on whether this is terminal. Has the current owner offered a view?

 

[PeterWright]

and what are his skills?

Save your time and money, look elsewhere. Loads of boats for sale.

+1. By looking elsewhere you don't have to worry about it.

If you're still interested in this boat, you should worry and ask lots odf questions, including:
What does "completely redone" mean?
Who redid it and what are his skills?
What sealant was used for he keel / hull joint and why is water already dribbling out of it only 2 years after it was redone?
Has she been bounced on the sand since she was redone?

Will h vendor reduce the price sufficiently to allow for you to get the keel joint remade by a professional shipwright?

Peter

 

[Stephan&Beth]

Thanks for your guidance. My gut feeling agrees with what you're saying, however I was hoping there would be a simple explanation/fix

Let's keep looking.

 

[PeterWright]

Don't get me wrong, in general Westerly Falcons are sound cruising yachts, built like th proverbial brick outhouse. But that appearance, particularly only 2 years after a reported "repair" asks a lot of questions, moreso on a boat which was so rugged when new.

Peter

 

[Tranona]

Thanks for your guidance. My gut feeling agrees with what you're saying, however I was hoping there would be a simple explanation/fix



There is a simple explanation - whoever did the keel -if it has been dropped and rebedded did a lousy job. However there is the possibility there has been a grounding since, but there would be other evidence, particularly at the rear of the keel. Water weeping out will lead to water getting at the bolts.

 

[pvb]

Don't get me wrong, in general Westerly Falcons are sound cruising yachts, built like th proverbial brick outhouse. But that appearance, particularly only 2 years after a reported "repair" asks a lot of questions, moreso on a boat which was so rugged when new.

Ah, the myth continues - "brick outhouse", "rugged", etc. The truth is, when you subtract the ballast weight from the displacement, the hull/rig weight is much the same as other popular production boats, which rather undermines the myth.

 

[PeterWright]

Ah, the myth continues - "brick outhouse", "rugged", etc. The truth is, when you subtract the ballast weight from the displacement, the hull/rig weight is much the same as other popular production boats, which rather undermines the myth.

There's a lot more to ruggedness than weight, and the thickness of layup in a Westerly of that era far exceeds that of a modern mass production yacht.

 

[pvb]

There's a lot more to ruggedness than weight, and the thickness of layup in a Westerly of that era far exceeds that of a modern mass production yacht.

If it's much thicker layup, how come the hull doesn't weigh more?

 

[Bru]

If it's much thicker layup, how come the hull doesn't weigh more?

Don't know but I drill holes in boats for a living (to put things in, I don't leave 'em ) and Westerly's (and their ilk) are indeed built like brick outhouses compared to modern boats from the usual suspects. Not only are the hulls thicker but the main bulkheads, floors and the like are all much thicker, as much as double or more

That doesn't necessarily mean that modern boats are badly built, they're engineered to achieve the desired strength using the minimum of materials whereas the old way was to over-engineer, especially when it came to layup

 

[pvb]

Don't know but I drill holes in boats for a living (to put things in, I don't leave 'em ) and Westerly's (and their ilk) are indeed built like brick outhouses compared to modern boats from the usual suspects. Not only are the hulls thicker but the main bulkheads, floors and the like are all much thicker, as much as double or more

That doesn't necessarily mean that modern boats are badly built, they're engineered to achieve the desired strength using the minimum of materials whereas the old way was to over-engineer, especially when it came to layup

You see, the problem is that the figures don't stack up. If the hull is so much thicker, why isn't the hull heavier? I'm only a simple engineer, and I don't understand this. Perhaps the displacement figures are all lies?

 

[Bru]

You see, the problem is that the figures don't stack up. If the hull is so much thicker, why isn't the hull heavier? I'm only a simple engineer, and I don't understand this. Perhaps the displacement figures are all lies?

As I say, I don't know. All I know is from practical hands on experience they are a lot thicker (and take a hell of a lot more drilling through)

 

[PeterWright]

Don't know but I drill holes in boats for a living (to put things in, I don't leave 'em ) and Westerly's (and their ilk) are indeed built like brick outhouses compared to modern boats from the usual suspects. Not only are the hulls thicker but the main bulkheads, floors and the like are all much thicker, as much as double or more

That doesn't necessarily mean that modern boats are badly built, they're engineered to achieve the desired strength using the minimum of materials whereas the old way was to over-engineer, especially when it came to layup

I completely agree with all that. And one consequence of engineering everything for minimum material is that when one part fails, or even weakens, you immediately over stress other parts. Your description of how these earlier grp yachts were built actually aligns very well with how brick outhouses used to be built. Not a Westerly, but I have in my garage the cutouts from installing a bow thruster tunnel in my Moody - 28 mm thick and absolutely no air bubbles or porosity.

Peter

 

[pvb]

So why don't the weight figures make sense? I'm an engineer, and I can't understand it, I'm genuinely perplexed. And, as an aside, if Westerly boats were so ruggedly built, how come most surviving Centaurs have had to have keel area reinforcement?

 

[nortada]

Seems strange for a Westerly . Would this result from hitting something? clearly wiser to look elsewhere as pvb has said as it's not a rare breed but presumably if the price was cheap enough then any remedial works would be covered by the low acquisition costs so expert advice needed on whether this is terminal. Has the current owner offered a view?

Don't think it would be terminal but could be too expensive for an amateur to fix. Kind of job a boat yard could take on and then, fixed, sell back into the community.

Be interested to hear the outcome.

 

[lpdsn]

So why don't the weight figures make sense? I'm an engineer, and I can't understand it, I'm genuinely perplexed. And, as an aside, if Westerly boats were so ruggedly built, how come most surviving Centaurs have had to have keel area reinforcement?

Out of curiosity, what data are you using for comparison? I had a quick look on sailboatdata.com to try and compare a few other 34 footers and I ended up just doubting the data. The Bennie First 34.7 data is obviously wrong, but the notoriously lightweight Bav 34 also has a much higher hull weight than the Falcon.

 

[pvb]

Out of curiosity, what data are you using for comparison? I had a quick look on sailboatdata.com to try and compare a few other 34 footers and I ended up just doubting the data. The Bennie First 34.7 data is obviously wrong, but the notoriously lightweight Bav 34 also has a much higher hull weight than the Falcon.

I was looking on yachtsnet the other day. So what's the answer, I wonder? Having seen for myself the thinly disguised chaos of the Westerly factory, I could be persuaded that Westerly hadn't a clue what their boats actually weighed. But if they were excessively heavy, they'd float lower on the marks, which they seem not to.

 

[Javelin]

At least if the keel was dropped and resealed a couple of years ago it'll be easier to do it again.
Frankly its not such a big job to do if its just a joint issue.
Looking at the colour it might be rust blowout rather than keel movement.

BTW, Not all Westerly's were that stiff - GK29's for one are very prone to deformation when standing on the keel.

 

[Bru]

So why don't the weight figures make sense? I'm an engineer, and I can't understand it, I'm genuinely perplexed. And, as an aside, if Westerly boats were so ruggedly built, how come most surviving Centaurs have had to have keel area reinforcement?

Your weight figures don't make sense because they are based on incomplete information and sweeping assumptions!

The nominal displacement as stated by the manufacturer is an arbitrary number. Is it dry? Light ship? Or maximum? It's never stated

And then you're assuming that deducting the stated ballast from the stated displacement equates directly to the weight of the hull moulding

You did initially mention the rig but forgot it later ;p but you've not taken into account the interior fit out, mechanicals, furnishings etc etc.

I don't think you can make any useful guesses even as to the weight of the hull moulding based on the available information

As for the Centaur keel problems, they aren't restricted to Centaurs alone, although they suffer the most. The answer is quite simple, they got the design wrong and didn't put enough structural support into the keel roots on the earlier bilge keel models