Which sailboat?

[Tranona]

You will be lucky to find a 70s boat that does not have something like that on the survey. The fluids that cause the blisters have been in the boat from the day it was moulded and even the common strip and epoxy treatment that was used 20 years ago when these boats were worth something only delays things for a few years. If it has a good engine and sails and you can live with the interior and domestic equipment then the osmosis is not a deal breaker.

 

[Obi]

How wonderful to be making this lifestyle change, go for it and good luck, it is a lovely way to live. I lasted nearly four years and then decided I wanted a bath and a life on land again to be close to family. I did not find anything particularly arduous or challenging about the experience of living aboard, whether that was winter in the UK (I saw the sea freeze one winter), or the maintenance cycle, or the minor inconveniences of life on board.

The popular south coast (UK) marinas I used were all very welcoming and I was open about the fact that I was living onboard and it did not matter to them at all, in fact I think they liked having people around 365 days. I suspect that perhaps presenting myself smartly and my yacht in good clean condition may have helped make good impressions that encouraged a welcoming attitude from the marina staff.

After some time in the UK I then spent the remainder of my time solo sailing down to the Canaries, Porto Santo, Madeira, Gib, Spanish/French/Portuguese coasts and had an absolute blast. There were some scary times in Biscay, and lots of new things to learn about, but all good.

I will probably return to live aboard again in a few years time, when the time is right once more.

As far as I am aware osmosis causes an acid to build up in the fibre glass matting and ultimately weakens the rigidity of the structure. The longer it persists the more damage it does. Not something I would want to think about in a storm. I am of the mindset that osmosis could cause a catastrophic failure, . It cost £30,000 to sort out on my 40 foot Oyster back in 2006, thankfully it was the previous owner that addressed this and I had the receipts for the work. If and when you come to sell a yacht that has osmosis you will find it puts off some buyers.

 

[Tranona]

As far as I am aware osmosis causes an acid to build up in the fibre glass matting and ultimately weakens the rigidity of the structure. The longer it persists the more damage it does. Not something I would want to think about in a storm. I am of the mindset that osmosis could cause a catastrophic failure, . It cost £30,000 to sort out on my 40 foot Oyster back in 2006, thankfully it was the previous owner that addressed this and I had the receipts for the work. If and when you come to sell a yacht that has osmosis you will find it puts off some buyers.

I am afraid you are woefully misinformed about the causes and consequences of "osmosis". I challenge you to find any reliable example of a boat that has been structurally weakened by osmosis -the truism "a boat has never sunk because of osmosis" is broadly correct. You may well find boats where serious structural defects have been found during the treatment for osmosis - I know personally of 2 - but the fault lay in the original construction and was only exposed when the gel coat was removed. You misunderstand the causes of blisters in the gel coat which are the visible signs. The styrene that is contained in the blister (the smell you get when you burst it) was in the laminate from uncured resin from day one when the hull was moulded and only comes to the surface because the gel coat is not waterproof so water gets in and mixes with the styrene. So the cause is poor materials and poor manufacturing processes - not a criticism but just a reflection of what was known at the time.

It is largely boats from the 60-late 80s that suffer from this problem, and given that the UK was a major manufacturer of GRP hulls in that period a large number of boats (like your Oyster) built in the UK were affected. When it became evident 30 years ago moral panic set in - the end of the world is nigh for your boat if you don't get it "fixed". You could not sell your boat, nor get it insured and owners were (like yours) persuaded to spend £30k or whatever to preserve the value of their boat. In hindsight a big rip off as many of the treatments failed because you could not deal with the root cause, and boats that did not get treated are still going just as strongly, mostly through regular localised treatment of blisters as they occur. Fortunately by the late 80s better resins became available and production methods introduced and blistering of hulls became a thing of the past. For a few years some builders offered guarantees against such defects, but even these have been dropped and it is a non issue for new boats.

Virtually nobody carries out this expensive treatment any more and the "industry" it spawned has just about disappeared. Now there is much more information available on the subject it is no longer an issue for most used boat buyers, partly because the value of the boats that might be affected is now lower and the cost of treatment of the type your boat had is out of proportion to that value. They just accept that it is part of owning an older boat and know that the hull will still be structurally sound and just deal with the blisters as and when.

 

[V1701]

How wonderful to be making this lifestyle change, go for it and good luck, it is a lovely way to live. I lasted nearly four years and then decided I wanted a bath and a life on land again to be close to family. I did not find anything particularly arduous or challenging about the experience of living aboard, whether that was winter in the UK (I saw the sea freeze one winter), or the maintenance cycle, or the minor inconveniences of life on board.

The popular south coast (UK) marinas I used were all very welcoming and I was open about the fact that I was living onboard and it did not matter to them at all, in fact I think they liked having people around 365 days. I suspect that perhaps presenting myself smartly and my yacht in good clean condition may have helped make good impressions that encouraged a welcoming attitude from the marina staff.

After some time in the UK I then spent the remainder of my time solo sailing down to the Canaries, Porto Santo, Madeira, Gib, Spanish/French/Portuguese coasts and had an absolute blast. There were some scary times in Biscay, and lots of new things to learn about, but all good.

I will probably return to live aboard again in a few years time, when the time is right once more.

As far as I am aware osmosis causes an acid to build up in the fibre glass matting and ultimately weakens the rigidity of the structure. The longer it persists the more damage it does. Not something I would want to think about in a storm. I am of the mindset that osmosis could cause a catastrophic failure, . It cost £30,000 to sort out on my 40 foot Oyster back in 2006, thankfully it was the previous owner that addressed this and I had the receipts for the work. If and when you come to sell a yacht that has osmosis you will find it puts off some buyers.

And you'll find the marinas are much less tolerant of living aboard than they used to be...

 

[Obi]

I am afraid you are woefully misinformed about the causes and consequences of "osmosis". I challenge you to find any reliable example of a boat that has been structurally weakened by osmosis -the truism "a boat has never sunk because of osmosis" is broadly correct. You may well find boats where serious structural defects have been found during the treatment for osmosis - I know personally of 2 - but the fault lay in the original construction and was only exposed when the gel coat was removed. You misunderstand the causes of blisters in the gel coat which are the visible signs. The styrene that is contained in the blister (the smell you get when you burst it) was in the laminate from uncured resin from day one when the hull was moulded and only comes to the surface because the gel coat is not waterproof so water gets in and mixes with the styrene. So the cause is poor materials and poor manufacturing processes - not a criticism but just a reflection of what was known at the time.

It is largely boats from the 60-late 80s that suffer from this problem, and given that the UK was a major manufacturer of GRP hulls in that period a large number of boats (like your Oyster) built in the UK were affected. When it became evident 30 years ago moral panic set in - the end of the world is nigh for your boat if you don't get it "fixed". You could not sell your boat, nor get it insured and owners were (like yours) persuaded to spend £30k or whatever to preserve the value of their boat. In hindsight a big rip off as many of the treatments failed because you could not deal with the root cause, and boats that did not get treated are still going just as strongly, mostly through regular localised treatment of blisters as they occur. Fortunately by the late 80s better resins became available and production methods introduced and blistering of hulls became a thing of the past. For a few years some builders offered guarantees against such defects, but even these have been dropped and it is a non issue for new boats.

Virtually nobody carries out this expensive treatment any more and the "industry" it spawned has just about disappeared. Now there is much more information available on the subject it is no longer an issue for most used boat buyers, partly because the value of the boats that might be affected is now lower and the cost of treatment of the type your boat had is out of proportion to that value. They just accept that it is part of owning an older boat and know that the hull will still be structurally sound and just deal with the blisters as and when.

It is not woefully misinformed. but OK I might be wrong. Nor did I mention blisters. If you think I did, which you clearly do, then I wonder what other things you imagine you have read. Try not to be such a bloody troll will you? There is no need to go about with such strong language and it only invites confrontation.

However, thanks for the correction, I will certainly bear it in mind. But would I want a boat that has sores seeping stinky puss from blisters? Not really. Would I but a boat with osmosis based on your comments above, not a chance.

 

[Tranona]

It is not woefully misinformed. but OK I might be wrong. Nor did I mention blisters. If you think I did, which you clearly do, then I wonder what other things you imagine you have read. Try not to be such a bloody troll will you? There is no need to go about with such strong language and it only invites confrontation.

However, thanks for the correction, I will certainly bear it in mind. But would I want a boat that has sores seeping stinky puss from blisters? Not really. Would I but a boat with osmosis based on your comments above, not a chance.

Why did you not mention blisters, given that you have a boat that had £30k spent on it because of the blisters?

The key reason for my response is because you said quite clearly that "osmosis" weakens the structure and could lead to catastrophic failure when there is no evidence that this is the case. Not confronting, but other people might read your post and get the wrong impression.

No problem buying a boat that does not have blisters - just difficult if you want the type and age of boat that is prone to this condition. Buy a post mid 1990s on boat and it is mostly a non issue. The only downside to buying a boat with blistering is the regular maintenance required to keep them under control as it is no longer economic in most cases to have any of the treatments that have proven not always reliably effective over time.