Just how bad is Ferro-Cement?
TylrDurden
money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
responses...thanks.
Jeff Keiser
Keith
thing. As you've noticed, they don't have a good resale value, for
whatever reason. People have mentioned a lot of other problems, but I
don't remember the details.
--
__________________
Keith
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Craig Poole
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <20001023185000...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, TylrDurden
<tylrd...@aol.com> wrote:
> Any opinions would be valued. I have heard some horror stories, but for the
> money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
> responses...thanks.
>
> Jeff Keiser
Jeff,
I looked at couple of ferro boats during my good old boat search. both
seemed well built and solid but the latter showed rust stains on the
hull and keel area. the brokers comment was "Oh, thats just surface
rust" and you say......."uh, excuse me? surface rust? wonder whats
going on inside?"
therein lies one of the bigger problems with ferro boats. Most were
home built, most come from the 70's eco-period where good intentioned
people were building boats out of materials than steel and wood.
The consistency of the layup of concrete, drying time between pours,
the type and numbers of steel supporting rods and mesh structure can be
questionable and the biggest problem, is or has there been water
penetration into the steel mesh?.......no real way or no easy way of
deteriming the answer to all those questions without destructive
testing.
I did not try but i understand getting financing for a ferro boat is
difficult in comparisons to FG or ST hulls. Getting a "good survey" is
also tough. Surveying a ferro boat hull is very different from
surveying a steel, glass or wood boat.
One the other hand, ferro boats have been built for probably a hundred
years or more. they are highly popular in asia i believe due to the
lower cost and time for construction. I have heard of a good number
who have done successful circumnavigations and are still around.
One big factor i have seen discussed is the tendency for a ferro boat
to disintegrate if fetched on a reef and holed. Heavily built FG or ST
boats will have take a great deal more pounding (conjecture).
Another factor is resale value. it appears ferro boats have very poor
resale value between new and used and or they are difficult to sell.
I decided to stay away from the medium due to more negatives than
positives I felt.
regards,
Craig Poole
s/v Evensong
1967 Moody Halberdier 36 (heavy, thick fiberglass)
David Smalley
>
> Any opinions would be valued. I have heard some horror stories, but for the
> money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
> responses...thanks.
That are as bad as you could possibly imagine. Impossible to test the
integrity of the hull without destroying it. Impossible to both insure
and sell.
--
DAVe & Skoshi, '69 Stamas 26'
http://personal.mia.bellsouth.net/mia/d/r/drsi/
Loose Lines Limited
"TylrDurden" <tylrd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001023185000...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> Any opinions would be valued. I have heard some horror stories, but for
the
> money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
> responses...thanks.
>
Jeff,
The key is in your own message.
"...but for the money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat?"
I do not mean to sound facetious, but a moment or two of thoughtful
consideration on the above sentence should produce the correct answer.
Hull material has been and will be again the source of many a Jihad on
Usenet.
All that aside.
I grant that there are sound stone boats out there, but... how would you
ever know? Did you supervise construction yourself? Were the correct
tests done on the concrete samples provided at the time of the pour?
Since it is your money in the "... but for the money" quote, risk it however
you like. Realize it is, however, a risk.
Fair Winds,
Tom
Tom Berger
>
> <Ferro-Cement>
FC is a very good material when it is processed well. And there is the
problem: FC has been considered to be a rather cheap material for
home-builders, but they have not been told that FC is very difficult to
process. FC must be processed within just a few hours and you must keep
it wet for a few weeks to control the hardening process. Most
home-builders didn't have the skills, the tools and the manpower to
build good FC hulls.
However, the good news is, that the hardening process of FC never stops,
and indeed FC even becomes better when it is exposed to salt water.
Maintenance is much easier and cheaper than that of steel (corrosion) or
FG (osmosis) hulls. And then a 20 or more years old FC boat should have
proven it's seaworthness.
Tom Berger
myst...@mindspring.com
"TylrDurden" <tylrd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Any opinions would be valued. I have heard some horror stories, but for
the
> money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
> responses...thanks.
Recently, Jeff, I saw what has to be one of the prettiest, best-kept, most
well-maintained 45' ferrocement boat I've ever witnessed. It had been
freshly painted with glossy topside paint on the hull and deck, and the
hardware was clean, polished where applicable, and everything appeared to be
in good repair.
Then I had a chat with the boat's owner, who was lamenting his complete
inability to sell the boat. He'd had only one potential buyer so far, and
he was turned away by a bad survey. According to the owner, the surveyor
didn't find anything wrong with the boat, but simply said it was a "very
poor risk" due to the construction material. Furthermore the potential
buyer could find absolutely no lender willing to lend money for the boat.
The owner's asking price? $25K--super cheap for a 45' boat in near pristine
condition, I'd say.
The bottom line is that FC boats are albatrosses around their owner's necks.
They require constant monitoring to insure hull integrity, they are next to
impossible to resell, and lenders and insurers generally don't want anything
to do with them.
Jeff
Bill Dietrich
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dietrich/BoatBasics.html#Hull
Bill
Philip Allum
>Any opinions would be valued. I have heard some horror stories, but for the
>money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
>responses...thanks.
>
If you can find a professionally built one (Windboats of Wroxham,
England spring to mind) you will have a very good boat. With an
amateur built one, you pays your money and takes your chances.
--
Philip Allum
Douglas S. King
> See my web page for some info about this:
> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dietrich/BoatBasics.html#Hull
While your website is pretty good and you are justified in
being proud of it, do you have anything to contribute other
than constantly shilling it?
This is a discussion forum, not a pump-up-your-hit-counter
utility.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
http://recboats.hsh.com/45.htm
David Smalley
>
> Bill Dietrich wrote:
>
> > See my web page for some info about this:
> > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dietrich/BoatBasics.html#Hull
>
> While your website is pretty good and you are justified in
> being proud of it, do you have anything to contribute other
> than constantly shilling it?
>
> This is a discussion forum, not a pump-up-your-hit-counter
> utility.
Ding!
hkr...@capuantispam.net
At least Bill is shilling a boat-related website.
We have one poster here who continously shills a right-wing extremist
political website that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with boats.
--
Harry Krause
------------
If at first you don't succeed, forget skydiving
David Smalley
Fire your current handlers, and look up the work shill.
Your reputation as "literate" is plummeting rapidly.
Bill Dietrich
The alternative would be to copy all of the relevant info from my web site
into the message; that doesn't seem reasonable (lot of effort, wouldn't
present as well, wouldn't get updated when my site is updated).
My site is non-commercial.
Bill
David Smalley
>
> I think pointing people to a good information source is an okay thing to do.
Why don't you answer the question succinctly in your own words, then
post the deep link to further data.
Steven Kennedy
CUT THE SPAM. REMEMBER THE SPAMMING NZ FERRO-CEMENT FREAK.
skennedy
"Bill Dietrich" <bill_d...@peoplesoft.com> wrote in message
news:39f78a35$0$18...@news.denver1.Level3.net...
> I think pointing people to a good information source is an okay thing to
do.
>
Steven Kennedy
mental illness to yourself. Don't, please encourage others, who may not
know better. Telling people who don't know that there can be 'good'
ferrocement boats is like 'Bambi-cide' It's also like saying 'good' Polio.
For those you who haven't seen a REAL ferrocement boat.....Please visit the
beautiful Santa Cruz California coast and see the world famous 400' Cement
Ship. Yes, It's real. This ship is an excellent example of the myriad
possibilities of marine ferrocement. Without that visit NO ferrocement boat
person's education could be considered complete.
skennedy
"Philip Allum" <p...@eurogrove.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PTtDTLA$Pp95...@eurogrove.com...
Raymond Andes
You do protest too much, why?
"Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ujEN5.23643$rl.20...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steven Kennedy
"Stevie???? - do we have something going on there I don't know about??? Or
is this to be assumed to be condescension??? Let us know will you? As, abuse
misstated or misunderstood is as useless as your koncrete ketches.
What in your clearly skewed view by the way is "too much"?....I ask...As it
seems ( in your odd little world) to be up to you to determine what is after
all "too much". Really excellent to have your clearly learned opinion.
Apparently I shouldn't overstate my disgust with the lumpy, heavy, stiff,
unforgiving, uninsurable, crumbling, future derelicts known as ferrocement
boats. Oh yes...forgot ugly. Have I made myself clear yet?
I've formed my opinion on many experiences with crappy concrete boats. I
being a really old fart of 53, was around for it's (the sinder-block sloops)
heigh-day in the late 60's and I simply have seen far too many grown people
make fools of themselves over the mythical ferrocement boat in the past.
They (the previously referred to fools) tend either to be the " free lunch "
type who feel that (against physics) something for next to nothing is an
actual possibility. Or the "Mac" type who desperate and lonely that they
are, feel that 'different' for it's own sake is enough reason. Those types
don't even care if it floats.
While I've owned as many Birkenstocks as the next guy (they by the way make
crappy boat shoes), I'd like to think that I can see a bit farther than
those who want sailing sidewalks.
I personally am waiting for the blue translucent yacht. Rotomolded maybe.
Which as we all know must sail better than regular old fiberglass, Kevlar or
carbon fiber. Given the current state of industrial design, that should be
at any moment.
And thanks again Ray honey for your deep concern. I assume your concern to
be for me, as you ignored the actual text of the post, so as not to distract
you from your intended personal abuse. Thanks again..Kiss Kiss.
skennedy
"Raymond Andes" <RA1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4uEN5.169149$g6.76...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
William Martin
Of course I'm sure you've never seen a poorly built plastic boat? Or steel
rusting out?
Just because it's possible to build a boat poorly, doesn't imply the converse
that it's impossible to built one well.
Bill
-----------------------------
ted...@socrates.berkeley.edu
Steven Kennedy <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>For those you who haven't seen a REAL ferrocement boat.....Please visit the
>beautiful Santa Cruz California coast and see the world famous 400' Cement
>Ship. Yes, It's real. This ship is an excellent example of the myriad
>possibilities of marine ferrocement. Without that visit NO ferrocement boat
>person's education could be considered complete.
We used to have a beautiful Kaiser-built ferrocement submarine making up
part of the Berkeley Marina. It's still there, but under enough other
rip-rap that you can't go inside like we did in the '60s. Abandoned during
WW2 before somebody got killed.
-TC
--
Raymond Andes
someone that was an advocate of (??????) and then wasn't competent enough to
do a good job, hence you blame the product!
Shame on you, of course your being old does not relieve you of your
responsibility to fellow sailors to tell the truth.
Old fart, indeed. <G>
"Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HXEN5.23778$rl.20...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > What a bunch of crap. Ferro-cement doesn't even make good docks.
Keep
> > your
> > > mental illness to yourself. Don't, please encourage others, who may
not
> > > know better. Telling people who don't know that there can be 'good'
> > > ferrocement boats is like 'Bambi-cide' It's also like saying 'good'
> > Polio.
> > >
> > > For those you who haven't seen a REAL ferrocement boat.....Please
visit
> > the
> > > beautiful Santa Cruz California coast and see the world famous 400'
> Cement
> > > Ship. Yes, It's real. This ship is an excellent example of the myriad
> > > possibilities of marine ferrocement. Without that visit NO ferrocement
> > boat
> > > person's education could be considered complete.
> > >
Douglas S. King
> Well, that simply proves it's possible to build ferro-cement poorly doesn't it?
> Of course I'm sure you've never seen a poorly built plastic boat? Or steel
> rusting out?
No never ;)
> Just because it's possible to build a boat poorly, doesn't imply the converse
> that it's impossible to built one well.
True, but consider the risk. With other types of boatbuilding, there are
non-destructive tests to confirm the integrity of the hull. With ferrocement, it's
a pig in a poke. You have no idea when it's going to crumble until it does. It
might never. And the only way to put it back together again is to build a new
hull.....
And the remarks concerning the low resale value of ferrocement are true enough. If
one is wealthy enough to throw money away on a boat, why not throw it away on a
boat with a higher statistical probability of sticking together?
Graham
> I personally am waiting for the blue translucent yacht. Rotomolded > maybe.
I am unable to comment in detail due to ethical constraints.
But don't hold your breath, they're struggling to make it work at the
moment; largely due to managerial and financial problems.
On the other hand if one small group in Australia has been working on
this, then I'm sure there must be others.
myst...@mindspring.com
thread in the NG aside from venom and flames. He is a chronic troll. If
enough people filter him out, perhaps he'll go away.
Jeff
"Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>Okay ray
>
> Again...you feel that you're the arbiter. Delusions of intelligence.
>
> As to your post...Yes I do think the product is absolutely and irrevocably
> bad. That is....follow me here now Ray....completely independent of the
> workmanship involved in the production of the bad product. Concrete
> Boats....how can you form those words on your lips (which I understand you
> must have to do to be able to read then) without laughing. I've seen BOTH
> proper, quality workmanship as well as amateur (raymond like) workmanship
on
> lots of these Konkrete Ketches. Neither type work produced a high
quality,
> or even useful product. the material is inappropriate to its proposed use.
> Rather like rubber anchors, or Dacron propellers, or lead sails. Bad
> concepts produce bad products. Concepts, Raymond...look it up.
>
> Don't Ray, talk to me about responsibility to fellow sailors. What would
> you know about sailors? And, anyone who would actually encourage the use
of
> sidewalks as boats is to be regarded by one and all as totally
> irresponsible. That...you'll possibly remember was my entire point.
>
> Thanks for the insults by the way, as things are all relative. Were you
not
> insulting me, I'd perhaps feel that my concepts (again the big words) were
> not well formed.
>
> skennedy
>
> "Raymond Andes" <RA1...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:eWFN5.169212$g6.76...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
Steven Kennedy
Steven Kennedy
I don't wish to be redundant here, so please see my newer post to "drooling
raymond". But of course I've seen poorly built plastic boats, as well as
wood and metal (several types). Nor do resin or epoxy, much less Kevlar or
carbon fiber solve everything.
That doesn't however mean that concrete is any more suitable for boats than
say...phosphorus would be.
While is possible to build a fine foundation or sidewalk or retaining wall
out of concrete...it doesn't necessarily follow that a boat or an airplane
would work out quite as well. Paper for instance, makes a fabulous kite and
yet a really poor boat.
Put succinctly, some materials are more appropriate, for any proposed
application, than other materials would be for the same application.
Thanks by the way, for the substantially more literate post.
skennedy
"William Martin" <wma...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3A071992...@tampabay.rr.com...
> Well, that simply proves it's possible to build ferro-cement poorly
doesn't it?
> Of course I'm sure you've never seen a poorly built plastic boat? Or
steel
> rusting out?
>
> Just because it's possible to build a boat poorly, doesn't imply the
converse
> that it's impossible to built one well.
>
> Bill
>
Steven Kennedy
That was entirely my point, as the ferrocement freighter in SCruz was one
of several built to transport WWII goods. Imagine how well they worked.
One of course, must assume it was engineered and built by the most well
educated and talented professionals available. Yet it currently acts as the
breakwater for a State Beach. This duty is a far more appropriate
application for such materials, than as a boat/ship..
As to your submarine breakwater; now I know why everybody gives the Berkeley
Pier area such a wide berth. Wish I'd seen the thing before it went under.
I wish that all these ferro-nuts would see it also.
Sometimes being different is a good idea, adding richness to everybody's
life (can you tell I'm from Calif.?). Sometimes however, being different
...(note similarity to Mac ads) ...is just...different, and is just plain
dumb. Some people love the struggle involved in being different for no
particular reason. They should however be more responsible, when sharing
their masochistic opinions with other less knowledgeable folks....imagine
them giving such frightening suggestions as buying a ferrocement boat (or of
course a Mac).
skennedy
<ted...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:8u76no$8h3$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <ujEN5.23643$rl.20...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Steven Kennedy <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >For those you who haven't seen a REAL ferrocement boat.....Please visit
the
> >beautiful Santa Cruz California coast and see the world famous 400'
Cement
> >Ship. Yes, It's real. This ship is an excellent example of the myriad
> >possibilities of marine ferrocement. Without that visit NO ferrocement
boat
> >person's education could be considered complete.
>
>
lazy...@my-deja.com
While you are certainly veherement in your objection to FC as a
boat building material, and question the responsibility of others
of a different opinion, you haven't said WHY it's bad.
Personally, I think you're wrong. FC has been used in boats for most
of the previous century to build strong, long-lived vessels.
I think it's time to put up or shut up. What's wrong with it? Don't
try to fob us off with tales of inablility to 'peer' inside for
surveying, that has no bearing on it's ability as a building material.
Steel rusts, GRP blisters, nothing but wood actually floats, but they
are all common materials for boats. Why is a boat that has successfully
circumnavigated, build in FC, inherrently bad? Tell us, do.
Lazyjack
In article <8xHO5.480$Qk2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> While is possible to build a fine foundation or sidewalk or retaining
wall
> out of concrete...it doesn't necessarily follow that a boat or an
airplane
> would work out quite as well. Paper for instance, makes a fabulous
kite and
> yet a really poor boat.
>
> Put succinctly, some materials are more appropriate, for any proposed
> application, than other materials would be for the same application.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Howell
boats so long as they are built to certain standards of quality
especially with regard to the layup of the hull..
This may be achieved by the proffessionals who carry out the process in
a correct manner with the appropriate and correct designs for taking the
high rigging stresses into the ferro shell..
When you buy a home built you have no idea over how long a period the
hull was layed up...how well the cement was mixed.....or what is even
more important..how well are the rigging loads carried into the hull..
There are many perfectly good ferro sail boats sailing the oceans with
livaboards but there are as many lying around the shores that wouldn t
last the first storm.It can be just a wee bit difficult telling one from
the other, hence insurers reluctance to deal with them as the owners
would wish.
John
--
John Howell Chaka of Birdham MFAX-7
GM4ZQH
Edinburgh Scotland
_____________/)_____________/)______________/)______________
Dduelin
favor concrete construction. On the face of it, there seems to be little to
recommend it over GRP, wood, or metal construction. But the arguments posted
in here against concrete have been over the top.
Using examples of no-longer-displacing-water ferrocement craft are broad
generalizations. Is the fact the Kurst, Tresher, and the Torrey Canyon are
at rest on the bottom reliable proof that steel will never be a good
material to build vessels from? They were reputed to spring from the minds
of the most educated and talented professionals available....just like the
fabled Liberty ships of WWII, that broke into two pieces aft of the first
hold when hogged in heavy sea conditions. WWII demands made production
numbers a greater priority than design or build quality.
FWIW, there is a 50 foot Koncrete Ketch moored here in the Ortega River. She
bore San Diego as her home port when she showed up here. Built in south
Florida, she carried her two owners thru the Canal to the Pacific where she
logged many thousands of miles cruising in the Pacific islands. When the
call of home was heard, she sailed back to the east coast. Professionally
built to a good design, she endures after 30 years of sailing. Still owned
by the same couple, they plan to retire aboard her and make another long
cruise.
Dave Doolin
Steven Kennedy <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LPHO5.541$Qk2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Marriott B
<myst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8ufudr$q5t$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Do as I did, Steve--filter the idiot out. He contributes nothing to any
> thread in the NG aside from venom and flames. He is a chronic troll. If
> enough people filter him out, perhaps he'll go away.
>
> Jeff
>
> "Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
James R Krause
bought a ferro cement boat in BC and managed to sail it to Tahiti & back.
He encountered rough water & never once mentioned any structural problems
with the boat.
BTW I do recommend the book. He's a good writer.
Jim
Steven Kennedy
"James R Krause" <jark...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8up2tj$j1p$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
It could have become one of those awful disaster-at-sea books....very
easily. While I'm glad he had no difficulties, I do not support the
intellect that would choose Cement as a boat building material. Please
remember that for every story like Kevin's there are lots of half finished
fc boats lettering vacant lots and more on the sea bottom. Please do not
take this book as encouragement to risk your finances nor especially the
lives of your loved ones on ferro anything.
skennedy
Steven Kennedy
You're correct of course. I should also be more patient with those less
fortunate than ourselves. Sometimes though, it just feels good to bash the
buttheads of the world around some. Thanks.
skennedy
"Marriott B" <marr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:TvNP5.47337$e5.5...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> here here well put
>
> <myst...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8ufudr$q5t$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Do as I did, Steve--filter the idiot out. He contributes nothing to any
> > thread in the NG aside from venom and flames. He is a chronic troll.
If
> > enough people filter him out, perhaps he'll go away.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > "Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
lazy...@my-deja.com
"Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It could have become one of those awful disaster-at-sea books....very
> easily. While I'm glad he had no difficulties, I do not support the
> intellect that would choose Cement as a boat building material.
Please
> remember that for every story like Kevin's there are lots of half
finished
> fc boats lettering vacant lots and more on the sea bottom.
Y'see, there you go again. Making these wild claims without
anything to back up your arguments.
Do you have ANY evidence to support the notion that there is a
greater percentage of FC boats on the sea bottom of those launched,
compared to other building materials?
Is there any valid reason to suggest that there are more unfinished
FC projects than others?
Put up or shut up.
Lazyjack
Jon V
> In article <86KQ5.1683$oJ4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven Kennedy" <sken...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It could have become one of those awful disaster-at-sea books....very
> > easily. While I'm glad he had no difficulties, I do not support the
> > intellect that would choose Cement as a boat building material.
> Please
> > remember that for every story like Kevin's there are lots of half
> finished
> > fc boats lettering vacant lots and more on the sea bottom.
>
> Y'see, there you go again. Making these wild claims without
> anything to back up your arguments.
>
> Do you have ANY evidence to support the notion that there is a
> greater percentage of FC boats on the sea bottom of those launched,
> compared to other building materials?
He doesn't. Steven tries to prove himself a newsgroup wit by berating
anyone foolish enough to question "mom and apple pie."
> Is there any valid reason to suggest that there are more unfinished
> FC projects than others?
There is.
Sadly. Ferrocement was marketed as a cheap way to get into cruising-boat
ownership in the days before tens of thousands of fiberglass hulls were
available for less than the materials cost. The reality is that FC is an
OK boatbuilding material/technique that has resulted in some fine vessels,
but it requires both attention and coordination to use properly.
The failure rate for FC boatbuilding projects is undeniably higher than
other materials, with the possible exception of plywood, because A) many
people were tempted by the low material costs to build too large, and B)
many of the people who bought the FC hype didn't have realistic budgets --
they believed too firmly in the concept of sweat equity. There were also
problems with people completing tasks out of sequence and realizing that
there was no way to step back and fix their mistakes.
As for cement, it is one of the most wonderful materials ever developed.
When wielded by a skilled engineer, there are few things it cannot do.
Unfortunately, "flex" is one of those things.
--
Jon
___________________________________________________________________________
Success is never final.
-- Winston Churchill
Jon V
> > The failure rate for FC boatbuilding projects is undeniably higher
> than
> > other materials
>
> Now don't fall into the bad ways of others. It may have been a true
> statement back in the '60s and '70s but I can't recall having seen
> a failed FC project in someone's back yard. I do see lots of others
> that may not have failed, but have certainly rusted and rotted and
> been overtaken by weeds. I know FC is not a popular choice for the
> home constructor these days but words like 'undeniably' tend to get
> me going. There is much better information around about FC construction
> than there used to be and you may be surprised if a survey was
> taken.
I think it apt, though. I'm not gloating, by the way, just trying to be
accurate. The percentage of failed projects in a given material is highest
for FC or Plywood. I would guess FC. Probably not the percentage of wasted
money, by the way, just number of failed starts. Failed projects. For
every 100 FC boats started, 70 will never finish, and for GRP that number
is probably closer to 65. Part of that is the size bias . . . it is
simply harder, more expensive, and more subject to loss-of-momentum to
spend five years building a 40 foot boat than a year on a 17 footer, and
FC is only used in larger projects (at least in recreational vessels,
there are small FC work boats AFAIK).
The only runner up would be plywood, due to the large number of plywood
dinks that are started by first-time builders and never finished. (I've
got one -- S&G, all taped up and hanging in my workshed for the last year
and some.)
I cannot imagine choosing FC today to build a recreational vessel for some
simple reasons . . . the only reason to build a new hull today, with 30
years of fiberglass hulls available at recycler's rates, is to implement a
new design concept or to fulfill a desire for traditional construction
(replica antique). New design concepts are probably best carried out in
modern materials, unless the material is somehow integral to the design
concept (E.G. concrete submarines), and very few traditional or
replica-worthy vessels were FC. If I was interested in "building" a
cruiser, I would spend a couple of months finding a salvage FG hull that
fit my needs before I spent a year building a new hull in any material.
They become available often for prices ranging from $1 to $10,000,
depending more on location than condition.
> Lets just agree to say that there is nothing inherently bad about
> using FC for boatbuilding, any more than any other material in common
> use. They can all be screwed up by a determined constructor! <g>
As I said -- the only thing that concrete can't be made to do is flex.
Only FC project failure I've tracked real-time was, unfortunately, builder
error. The test block for the cement was made as the plastering was being
done . . . three weeks (whatever) later when everything was "finished"
(set), the test block failed its pressure test and the project was
scrapped with much heartache. Had the test block been done *before* the
plastering was started, the project would probably be almost finished by
now. Simple mistake of over-eagerness.
--
Jon
___________________________________________________________________________
Laugh about it, shout about it -- when you've got to choose....
every way you look at this you lose.
David Smalley
>
> I know FC is not a popular choice for the
> home constructor these days but words like 'undeniably' tend to get
> me going. There is much better information around about FC construction
> than there used to be and you may be surprised if a survey was
> taken.
>
> using FC for boatbuilding, any more than any other material in common
> use. They can all be screwed up by a determined constructor! <g>
When you tell me of a US based insurance company that will insure a FC
hull then I will believe you.
lazy...@my-deja.com
Jon V <j...@valesh.com> wrote:
> > Do you have ANY evidence to support the notion that there is a
> > greater percentage of FC boats on the sea bottom of those launched,
> > compared to other building materials?
>
> He doesn't. Steven tries to prove himself a newsgroup wit by berating
> anyone foolish enough to question "mom and apple pie."
Yeah, I know that. I just wanted to see what he could invent.
> > Is there any valid reason to suggest that there are more unfinished
> > FC projects than others?
>
> There is.
>
> Sadly. Ferrocement was marketed as a cheap way to get into cruising-
boat
> ownership in the days before tens of thousands of fiberglass hulls
were
> available for less than the materials cost. The reality is that FC is
an
> OK boatbuilding material/technique that has resulted in some fine
vessels,
> but it requires both attention and coordination to use properly.
Agree with all that.
> The failure rate for FC boatbuilding projects is undeniably higher
than
> other materials
Now don't fall into the bad ways of others. It may have been a true
statement back in the '60s and '70s but I can't recall having seen
a failed FC project in someone's back yard. I do see lots of others
that may not have failed, but have certainly rusted and rotted and
been overtaken by weeds. I know FC is not a popular choice for the
home constructor these days but words like 'undeniably' tend to get
me going. There is much better information around about FC construction
than there used to be and you may be surprised if a survey was
taken.
Lets just agree to say that there is nothing inherently bad about
using FC for boatbuilding, any more than any other material in common
use. They can all be screwed up by a determined constructor! <g>
Lazyjack
lazy...@my-deja.com
be
> accurate. The percentage of failed projects in a given material is
highest
> for FC or Plywood. I would guess FC. Probably not the percentage of
wasted
> money, by the way, just number of failed starts. Failed projects. For
> every 100 FC boats started, 70 will never finish, and for GRP that
number
> is probably closer to 65.
And you are citing as reference for these figures which publication ???
> I cannot imagine choosing FC today to build a recreational vessel for
some
> simple reasons . . . the only reason to build a new hull today, with
30
> years of fiberglass hulls available at recycler's rates, is to
implement a
> new design concept or to fulfill a desire for traditional construction
> (replica antique).
Wrong, wrong and wrong. I wish people wouldn't resort to absolutes
when offering an opinion.
There are many, many people who build boats for a variety of reasons,
including that fact that they like building boats! I'm one of them. I
build in wood, because I like it as a medium. I don't build
traditional or replica boats. I don't like GRP, steel, aluminium or
other mediums. I'm not much impressed with the last 30 years worth of
boat designs but I don't think that anything older is worthy of the
term 'traditional'.
> New design concepts are probably best carried out in
> modern materials.
Why? There's nothing new about wood but it's well suited to bleeding
edge design concepts. Ditto aluminium, and there's nothing new about
GRP really.
> If I was interested in "building" a
> cruiser, I would spend a couple of months finding a salvage FG hull
that
> fit my needs before I spent a year building a new hull in any
material.
That's as may be but many people wouldn't take that approach. GRP has
some serious inherrent problems as a boat building medium. Blistering
is common and can be expensive to remedy.
> Only FC project failure I've tracked real-time was, unfortunately,
builder
> error. The test block for the cement was made as the plastering was
being
> done . . . three weeks (whatever) later when everything
was "finished"
> (set), the test block failed its pressure test and the project was
> scrapped with much heartache. Had the test block been done *before*
the
> plastering was started, the project would probably be almost finished
by
> now. Simple mistake of over-eagerness.
Yes, I remember reading about that. It must have been a real blow.
Douglas S. King
> > > It could have become one of those awful disaster-at-sea books....very
> > > easily. While I'm glad he had no difficulties, I do not support the
> > > intellect that would choose Cement as a boat building material.
> > > Please remember that for every story like Kevin's there are lots of
> > > half finished fc boats lettering vacant lots and more on the sea bottom.
>
> > Y'see, there you go again. Making these wild claims without
> > anything to back up your arguments.
Umm, here in the US, the phrase "there you go again" is not likely to convince
anybody that you are a serious correspondent.
And unfortunately, there is no government agency that collects data on
home-built boats. No private agency either, AFAIK.
> > Do you have ANY evidence to support the notion that there is a
> > greater percentage of FC boats on the sea bottom of those launched,
> > compared to other building materials?.
>
>
> Jon V wrote:
> He doesn't. Steven tries to prove himself a newsgroup wit by berating
> anyone foolish enough to question "mom and apple pie."
>
> > Is there any valid reason to suggest that there are more unfinished
> > FC projects than others?
>
> There is.
>
> Sadly. Ferrocement was marketed as a cheap way to get into cruising-boat
> ownership in the days before tens of thousands of fiberglass hulls were
> available for less than the materials cost.
Agreed. The evidence is anecdotal, but IMHO irrefutable. I don't know how many
are resting on the sea bottom, but I personally know of about two dozen
would-be boatbuilders who intended to build FC boats and take off around the
world and did not even finish the hull, much less get it in the water.
Nowadays I think the dream material of choice is steel rather than
ferrocement, and I know of about a dozen steel hulls and partial hulls rusting
quietly in the weeds in eastern NC.
> .... The reality is that FC is an
> OK boatbuilding material/technique that has resulted in some fine vessels,
> but it requires both attention and coordination to use properly.
And unfortunately, the biggest drawback to buying a 2nd hand FC boat is that
there is no known way, short of drilling core samples, of testing the hull
armature. And once you've drilled core samples, you have admitted the very
demon that you wanted at all costs to keep out. A rusting armature means that
the boat *will* crumble and sink. It is only a matter of time and the big
question of when and where.
I know of four or five FC boats that were finished and served their purpose
for say between five and twenty years, then sank at the dock. I can imagine
there are a similar percentage of boats that have sunk in less fortunate
places. And a few that were properly built and well maintained and are still
sailing on!
> The failure rate for FC boatbuilding projects is undeniably higher than
> other materials, with the possible exception of plywood, because A) many
> people were tempted by the low material costs to build too large, and B)
> many of the people who bought the FC hype didn't have realistic budgets --
> they believed too firmly in the concept of sweat equity. There were also
> problems with people completing tasks out of sequence and realizing that
> there was no way to step back and fix their mistakes.
And this is one area where ferrocement is much more unforgiving than steel or
fiberglass or wood. The lack of a survey method is the big drawback, to my
mind. The risk is high and it is a completely blind jump.
And, given the abundance of fiberglass boats available cheaply, why spend
money on such a dubious gamble?
> As for cement, it is one of the most wonderful materials ever developed.
> When wielded by a skilled engineer, there are few things it cannot do.
> Unfortunately, "flex" is one of those things.
That's a brilliant quote Jon! Mind if I steal it from you? With credit of
course. Even skilled engineers need to be reminded of the eternal verities
from time to time ;)
Jon V
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.100111...@slinky.snni.com>,
> Jon V <j...@valesh.com> wrote:
> > I think it apt, though. I'm not gloating, by the way, just trying to
> be
> > accurate. The percentage of failed projects in a given material is
> highest
> > for FC or Plywood. I would guess FC. Probably not the percentage of
> wasted
> > money, by the way, just number of failed starts. Failed projects. For
> > every 100 FC boats started, 70 will never finish, and for GRP that
> number
> > is probably closer to 65.
>
> And you are citing as reference for these figures which publication ???
Only a lifetime of interested observation. When I was quite young, and
even before, my parents were actively interested in building boats. They
did much research, and acquired much information on many construction
techniques. FC, Steel, Aluminum, Wood, FG, and a few "others". Sadly,
health issues stepped in and threw them for a loop before they could do
more than research, but they managed to pass on the interest to me.
I have extrapolated my own observations to generate those numbers. Most
boat projects started are never finished. With the exception of plywood,
the percentage of starts to finishes is inversely proportional to the size
of the project. If you spend 6 months searching, you can find a half dozen
unfinished projects for sale at bargain prices. Most of those would be
suitable for taking over if you had an interest . . . but not the FC
projects, for reasons we both acknowledge.
> > I cannot imagine choosing FC today to build a recreational vessel for
> some
> > simple reasons . . . the only reason to build a new hull today, with
> 30
> > years of fiberglass hulls available at recycler's rates, is to
> implement a
> > new design concept or to fulfill a desire for traditional construction
> > (replica antique).
>
> Wrong, wrong and wrong. I wish people wouldn't resort to absolutes
> when offering an opinion.
OK, I misspoke slightly. The only reason for building a hull out of
inexpensive materials, with 30 years of fiberglass hulls available at
recycler's rates, is to . . . . :-)
> There are many, many people who build boats for a variety of reasons,
> including that fact that they like building boats! I'm one of them. I
> build in wood, because I like it as a medium. I don't build
> traditional or replica boats. I don't like GRP, steel, aluminium or
> other mediums. I'm not much impressed with the last 30 years worth of
> boat designs but I don't think that anything older is worthy of the
> term 'traditional'.
Do you build new or current designs, or recycle old designs? You may enjoy
building boats, but if you build hulls that could be purchased and
resurrected, you are doing the world a disservice. As I said, "to
implement a new design concept." A new design concept does not necessarily
mean radical departure. It may be as simple as a stretch, or as complex as
a complete rethink of the word "boat". Doesn't matter.
As for 'traditional', I was intending the term to apply to truly
traditional construction . . . reproduction longboats and such, but on
second thought, if you really wanted an accurate reproduction of a 1930
mahogany speed boat, or a racing yacht from the same era . . . it is its
own sort of tradition. I still think you should restore, not build, but
there the cost may overwhelm other factors.
> > New design concepts are probably best carried out in
> > modern materials.
>
> Why? There's nothing new about wood but it's well suited to bleeding
> edge design concepts. Ditto aluminium, and there's nothing new about
> GRP really.
Modern wooden boats often are composed of modern materials. Most of the
new design, new construction wooden boats I'm aware of currently being
built are some variation of epoxy saturated strip, or cold molded, or
plywood planked, all of which qualify as "modern materials". Not all, but
most. The few would-be "new" boats, where the new part is the design and
concept, that are carvel planked are being built by a form of
traditionalists, though they may not be traditional designs. The only
"traditional technique" wooden boats I know of being built are recreations
of traditional vessels (barques, etc.), or are smaller art-boats built for
love. IOW, most are community projects or the labor of romantics.
Steel is not a modern material, however, much of the modern steel
boatbuilding was encouraged by marketers of corten, CNC plate cutting, and
other modern advances. Aluminum likewise has ridden higher with advances
in technique and coating technology, including CNC cutting, machine
welding, etcetera.
GRP is not new, however, it has advanced significantly over the years.
Would a home-builder be wise to use polyester and fiberglass mat when
building a new boat? I don't think so. If they want a hull built that way,
they should buy a used hull, costing between 1/2 and 1/10th as much as the
materials to build it, and set to work making that hull into the boat they
want.
> > If I was interested in "building" a
> > cruiser, I would spend a couple of months finding a salvage FG hull
> that
> > fit my needs before I spent a year building a new hull in any
> material.
>
> That's as may be but many people wouldn't take that approach. GRP has
> some serious inherrent problems as a boat building medium. Blistering
> is common and can be expensive to remedy.
Again, not with modern materials; blistering is virtually unheard of with
Epoxy/cloth construction, and most processes involving autoclaves.
Repairing a blistered hull is less expensive and easier than building a
new hull.
> > Only FC project failure I've tracked real-time was, unfortunately,
> builder
> > error. The test block for the cement was made as the plastering was
> being
> > done . . . three weeks (whatever) later when everything
> was "finished"
> > (set), the test block failed its pressure test and the project was
> > scrapped with much heartache. Had the test block been done *before*
> the
> > plastering was started, the project would probably be almost finished
> by
> > now. Simple mistake of over-eagerness.
>
> Yes, I remember reading about that. It must have been a real blow.
I can only imagine, and I don't want to. The point to remember is that the
failure was exactly what concerns everyone who goes beyond rhetoric and
tries to discuss FC rationally . . . a simple, honest, and easy to make
mistake . . . a moment when the desire to see the fruits of his labor
overwhelmed caution, and trust was allowed free reign . . . was
unrecoverable. I've known people who made the same kind of mistake with
fiberglass, taking newly purchased epoxy, mixing it up, and spreading
it over their boat (my boat, actually, but let's not get into that), only
to realize that the damned supplier doubled up on "Part A".
Just like the cement . . . test the damn material before applying it. The
difference was -- three days of extra work cleaning up the mess, vs....
--
Jon
___________________________________________________________________________
Necessity hath no law.
-- Oliver Cromwell
Jon V
> I know of four or five FC boats that were finished and served their purpose
> for say between five and twenty years, then sank at the dock. I can imagine
> there are a similar percentage of boats that have sunk in less fortunate
> places. And a few that were properly built and well maintained and are still
> sailing on!
Unfortunately, I have a rather pessimistic view of homebuilt boats sinking
at dock that has nothing to do with construction type. It comes from
neighbors I had when young, who built a nice-looking fiberglass 30+ foot
sailboat in their back yard and moved it to a local marina for use. A
marina where, by chance, the father of a good friend was a county
sheriff's marine patrol officer, and "rescue" diver (I never found out
what they rescued, though they had the unfortunate task of recovering
bodies from time to time). About a year after the boat left my neighbor's
back yard I heard that it had sunk in its slip. My friend's father, as an
official on scene and a county diver, participated in the recovery and
investigation. Turns out that the through-hulls had been bedded, and not
bolted, to the inside of the hull. One broke loose, and since nobody was
aboard, all hell broke with it.
Point is that it was another stupid mistake -- they happen. They are the
reason I don't like through hulls to this day, and why I don't consider
sinking at dock to be indicative of likely sinking while operating.
> > As for cement, it is one of the most wonderful materials ever developed.
> > When wielded by a skilled engineer, there are few things it cannot do.
> > Unfortunately, "flex" is one of those things.
>
> That's a brilliant quote Jon! Mind if I steal it from you? With credit of
> course. Even skilled engineers need to be reminded of the eternal verities
> from time to time ;)
Steal away.
--
Jon
___________________________________________________________________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and
finds himself no wiser than before," Bokonon tells us. "He is full of
murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by
their ignorance the hard way."
-- Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's Cradle"
david.m...@gmail.com
> Any opinions would be valued. I have heard some horror stories, but for the
> money, you sure seem to get a lot of boat? Please post your
> responses...thanks.
>
> Jeff Keiser
Im my option the key to building with FC is to have trained person applying the materials with consistancy.. Im opposed to workshops with this tech. Curing time is critical.. Watering the cement is cureing it. I have had good luck in watering all day for three days...Ive Not had one leak in the two designes we built here in Guatemala with Ulew Atitlan in Santiago Atitlan Solola Guatemala. Im conscidering the post of three weeks drying time and will explore FC more...