Jump to content

Amateur couple rebuilds salvage cruiser


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 548
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Like watch it before commenting? Have you no respect for internet traditions?  

Sure I would. It's the Chevy of the seas, not a Pininfarina. If you drive it like a rental (Which it was) you'll get wear and tear like a rental. Hitting rocks with boats is bad, as I understand it th

To be fair, most keels are bolted on, the question is, what are they actually bolted TO...

Posted Images

I've watched a few episodes. They are sort of doing it right (removing the molded tabs in the keel grid and then re-glassing). Amusing to see how much Plexus never bonded to the hull.

But holy shit what a lot of really unpleasant work. They had to disassemble the main cabin interior, and drop the keel. At the end of the day do you really trust the work you've done?

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Zonker said:

I've watched a few episodes. They are sort of doing it right (removing the molded tabs in the keel grid and then re-glassing). Amusing to see how much Plexus never bonded to the hull.

But holy shit what a lot of really unpleasant work. They had to disassemble the main cabin interior, and drop the keel. At the end of the day do you really trust the work you've done?

 

If the plexus isn't bonding properly, you might trust your work over what the factory did......

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda thought they were nuts and would have no idea what they are doing at first, but watching their approach and progress I kinda changed my mind.  While they are definitely nuts, they seem to be approaching this project correctly and I think they will get a good result in the end.  I am enjoying the progress.  It's a lot of boat for newbie sailors.  Will be interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned in one of their earlier episodes, they already bought, restored and sailed a smaller boat (24' or so), they've converted a bus into a campervan to live in, and have been working towards the goal of sailing around the world for a few years already.

So it would appear they dove into this project with their eyes wide open and are not afraid to put in the hard work and do things right.

2 things from the videos: I'm following them mostly out of curiosity to see how badly this boat had been fucked up. They seem to discover a lot of voids and delaminations in the factory original layup, which is worrying, but the way the first repair was done after the initial grounding is absolutely diabolical! Fiberglass layup over original gelcoat, liberal applications of bondo to cover the gaping space between the frame and the hull, etc.

Second thing is, I'm not sure what story they are trying to tell with their videos up to this point. The technical information is not very in depth till now, but they're not really going  all in down the 'look at us cute folks leading the insta-life' route -  at least  not for the time being...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, alphafb552 said:

As mentioned in one of their earlier episodes, they already bought, restored and sailed a smaller boat (24' or so), they've converted a bus into a campervan to live in, and have been working towards the goal of sailing around the world for a few years already.

So it would appear they dove into this project with their eyes wide open and are not afraid to put in the hard work and do things right.

2 things from the videos: I'm following them mostly out of curiosity to see how badly this boat had been fucked up. They seem to discover a lot of voids and delaminations in the factory original layup, which is worrying, but the way the first repair was done after the initial grounding is absolutely diabolical! Fiberglass layup over original gelcoat, liberal applications of bondo to cover the gaping space between the frame and the hull, etc.

Second thing is, I'm not sure what story they are trying to tell with their videos up to this point. The technical information is not very in depth till now, but they're not really going  all in down the 'look at us cute folks leading the insta-life' route -  at least  not for the time being...

Also following these guys with special interest as I am considering purchasing a boat that had a hard grounding.  Fixed by a competent yard.  I have the yard invoice submitted to insurance company.... very expensive.   Yard mentioned they also repaired/rebonded voids found from the factory build.  This must be a common discovery when digging into the grid.  That is scary for sure.  I am feeling confident that this boat is stronger, stiffer etc than the factory built boat.  
These kids should experience the sane outcome...... I did cringe when the keel was removed though.....more grinding work ahead for these guys.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rain Man said:

I love watching stuff like this.  Makes the boat issues I'm dealing with seem puny and insignificant.  My biggest problem at the moment is probably their smallest one.  

I cried because I had no wallet.  

Until I met a man who had no money.

 

Or something like that anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they aren't in a hurry and can work on it every day, they'll get it done eventually.  I wonder what their source of income is?  They are going to need truckloads of dollars to complete this project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

If they aren't in a hurry and can work on it every day, they'll get it done eventually.  I wonder what their source of income is?  They are going to need truckloads of dollars to complete this project.

He's a flight instructor, so I guess there's some occasional money in that - besides they have been living frugally for years now, so might have a nice little nest egg

And who knows, maybe even filthy rich parents?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, longy said:

Lots of enthusiasm, not a lot of knowledge. They will be cleaning grinding dust out of the boat for the rest of their lives.

 

Grinding dust is easy to get rid of once the refurb is done. You just sink the boat and all the nasty dust goes away on the next tide! Almost did that myself... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also been impressed with the progress so far. The seem intent on grinding gelcoat out of areas that perhaps could be left alone, like the tops of stringers, but probabably better to prep too much rather than not enough. 

I wonder how they plan the repair itself. It is a big, heavy, damaged, under built, and complex boat. Getting a marine engineer involved would be good. The other option is just to way overdo it and not worry about the added weight of many layers of cloth and epoxy. Since it is a cruiser, and most of the repair is below the waterline, I suspect that will be what happens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, longy said:

Lots of enthusiasm, not a lot of knowledge. They will be cleaning grinding dust out of the boat for the rest of their lives.

I'm still finding untapped seams of fibreglass dust in my boat nearly a year after my chainplate project, that shit gets fucking everywhere.

That said, they do seem to be approaching this the right way, its scary just how hard to repair that type of construction is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MiddayGun said:

That said, they do seem to be approaching this the right way, its scary just how hard to repair that type of construction is.

In my latest boat purchase I specifically avoided Beneteau for this reason.  One has to assume that a grounding will occur at some point, if it hasn't already when you buy it, and if you have the glued pan structure you will forever wonder whether the job was done right.  As we can see from this example, it very often is not.  Doing it right involves removing everything from the interior and grinding away the pan until you can see everything.  This would make most used boats write-offs.

Next time, though, if there is a next time, I will avoid iron keels....  lesson learned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zonker said:

At the end of the day do you really trust the work you've done?

And do you think someone else will want it when they have publicly disclosed the fact that the integrity of the grid is suspect and rebuilt by ameteurs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sail4beer said:

And do you think someone else will want it when they have publicly disclosed the fact that the integrity of the grid is suspect and rebuilt by ameteurs?

I got the impression they were intending to rebuild the grid.  If it is all carefully documented on-line and the work is well done that should work in their favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Next time, though, if there is a next time, I will avoid iron keels....  lesson learned.

Bill Garden was in favour of iron keels on cruising boats "That occasionally have to feel their way in" because it tended to bounce off rocks where lead would form around the rock and transmit the full force into the hull.

Sounded reasonable to me - the only time I hit a rock hard the boat stopped in it's tracks - no "bounce" whatsoever. Chewed the shit out of the tip of the keel.

My Columbia's iron keel had hit something hard enough to leave 1/4" deep gouges in the iron - no other damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one told them to seal off the other areas of the boat before they started grinding?

They are going to itch for years, if not the rest of their lives.

Looks like they are doing the repair right - that boat has a good chance to be much better than stock.

I've only skimmed the vid - anybody know what they paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Bill Garden was in favour of iron keels on cruising boats "That occasionally have to feel their way in" because it tended to bounce off rocks where lead would form around the rock and transmit the full force into the hull.

Sounded reasonable to me - the only time I hit a rock hard the boat stopped in it's tracks - no "bounce" whatsoever. Chewed the shit out of the tip of the keel.

My Columbia's iron keel had hit something hard enough to leave 1/4" deep gouges in the iron - no other damage.

Hmm sounds like the opposite to me.
The lead keel dissipates the energy from the grounding by deforming the lead, and the boat stops dead.

With the iron keel, no deformation, all kinetic energy of the impact is reflected back into the structure of the boat, hence bouncing off rather than just stopping.

My old Eygthene 24 1/4 tonner had a cast iron keel bolted through oak cored glassed in floors, when I pulled the front keel bolt to check it, the bolt had stretched and that combined with corrosion meant that it was just 2/3 of its original diameter, the force had also been transmitted to the aft floors causing de lamination. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of their videos came up randomly yesterday. They were dropping the keel, and a few layers of hull came with it. Without knowing any of their story, I couldn't help wondering how this project could be worth it. But more power to 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grinding off the tops of the stringers & loosing the level floor support is just one example of their lack of knowledge. All that has done is create a large headache down the job when they attempt to re-install the flooring panels. The interior should have been sealed off with two layers of plastic & fans set up to create a negative air pressure in that space. They have even completely dusted their interior cushions with dust - they'll be itchy just sitting on them. Peeling off the bilge sump & some hull glass is a testimony to whatever stuff keel was installed with. In hindsight, the only way to prevent that would have been cutting the sump free of the hull before dropping the keel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was like "ooof those groundings must have been violent" then after a few episodes I was like " are you f'ing kidding me this isn't all post grounding drunken dishonest yards BS" then recently they were knocking bonder off the hull with chisels easily and I was like "holy shit Beneteau is out of control on quality assurance on their bonding" .

No way would I buy a beneteau, there is no way to QA the bonding without destroying the build to destructively test the pan bond. How does beneteau know the insert has stuck?  right...they don't.

this should be very embarrassing for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MiddayGun said:

The lead keel dissipates the energy from the grounding by deforming the lead, and the boat stops dead.

With the iron keel, no deformation, all kinetic energy of the impact is reflected back into the structure of the boat, hence bouncing off rather than just stopping.
 

I think Garden was right so I see it just the opposite;

The lead ensures the boat absorbs every scrap of the energy when it forms over the rock and stops dead.

The iron "ricochets" off and the energy is partially absorbed by moving the boat. Think about how much energy it takes to lift a 20,000 Lb. boat a few inches and push it sideways through the water.

I watched an old, heavy iron keeled sailboat motor onto a rock near shore once - heard a huge "clang" and the boat lifted up visibly from several hundred yards away and moved sideways a couple of feet. They simply altered course towards deeper water and continued motoring along.

A lead keel would have stopped dead and almost certainly have sustained damage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The Squid said:

At first I was like "ooof those groundings must have been violent" then after a few episodes I was like " are you f'ing kidding me this isn't all post grounding drunken dishonest yards BS" then recently they were knocking bonder off the hull with chisels easily and I was like "holy shit Beneteau is out of control on quality assurance on their bonding" .

Do not get into boatbuilding... you will be shocked by material behaviour. You can have a strong glue that you can chisel off easily.
And epoxy get soft by heat of the sun, and wooden boat burns, steel gets crevice corrosion, ... maybe you should neve4r step onboard a vessel again.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I think Garden was right so I see it just the opposite;

The lead ensures the boat absorbs every scrap of the energy when it forms over the rock and stops dead.

The iron "ricochets" off and the energy is partially absorbed by moving the boat. Think about how much energy it takes to lift a 20,000 Lb. boat a few inches and push it sideways through the water.

I watched an old, heavy iron keeled sailboat motor onto a rock near shore once - heard a huge "clang" and the boat lifted up visibly from several hundred yards away and moved sideways a couple of feet. They simply altered course towards deeper water and continued motoring along.

A lead keel would have stopped dead and almost certainly have sustained damage.

 

An ideal lead keel absorbs energy by deforming - no energy would be left to transmit up the keelbolts to the rest of the boat. An ideal iron keel reflects and transmits energy.

If the ideal iron keel transmits energy perfectly into the rest of the boat and the rest of the boat transmits energy perfectly into the water then the boat behaves like a bell and stops ringing once all of the energy is dissipated into the water.

A real keel & boat will be somewhere between these two extremes. The pragmatic question is: is it easier to fix up a deformed lead keel and the relatively minor hull-keel damage or is it easier to deal with the consequences of the collision energy dissipating into the hull at the hull-keel interface?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Do not get into boatbuilding... you will be shocked by material behaviour. You can have a strong glue that you can chisel off easily.
And epoxy get soft by heat of the sun, and wooden boat burns, steel gets crevice corrosion, ... maybe you should neve4r step onboard a vessel again.

Look I have a materials engineering masters degree. Your ridiculously condescending comment I dismiss. "strong glue you can chisel off easily" ? give me a break...if it is bonded at all there will at least be some damage to the substrate. That "bonder" was superficially bonded to the hull at best. Did you watch the videos? it flaked right off. Some of it was NEVER IN CONTACT with the insert either. Do you work for Beneteau? if not then get off your knees.

If you have a Beneteau and are rationalizing your purchase, I cannot help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alphafb552 said:

Squid, I hope you realize that the boat underwent repair for serious damage after a grounding - so not all the horrors you see should be blamed on Beneteau without more detailed info

I think the problem is less the damage caused by what looks to have been a severe grounding & more the fact that this method of construction makes it very difficult to see what damage has occurred & even harder to enact any structural repair.

 

2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I think Garden was right so I see it just the opposite;

The lead ensures the boat absorbs every scrap of the energy when it forms over the rock and stops dead.

The iron "ricochets" off and the energy is partially absorbed by moving the boat. Think about how much energy it takes to lift a 20,000 Lb. boat a few inches and push it sideways through the water.

I watched an old, heavy iron keeled sailboat motor onto a rock near shore once - heard a huge "clang" and the boat lifted up visibly from several hundred yards away and moved sideways a couple of feet. They simply altered course towards deeper water and continued motoring along.

A lead keel would have stopped dead and almost certainly have sustained damage.

 

The lead Keel would sustain damage & in doing so prevent damage to the rest of the boat, think of it like a crumple zone on a car.
The fact that the iron keel ricochets the boat off shows that more stress is being put through the structure, that's more akin to the old school style of car that had no crumple zones, so the occupants underwent much more rapid deceleration.

We know that Force = Mass x Acceleration, so the faster the boat stops the more force is acting on it, and for an iron keel to ricochet it backwards in the same time that a lead keel  would stop it requires more force still.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, apophenia said:

An ideal lead keel absorbs energy by deforming - no energy would be left to transmit up the keelbolts to the rest of the boat. An ideal iron keel reflects and transmits energy.

If the ideal iron keel transmits energy perfectly into the rest of the boat and the rest of the boat transmits energy perfectly into the water then the boat behaves like a bell and stops ringing once all of the energy is dissipated into the water.

A real keel & boat will be somewhere between these two extremes. The pragmatic question is: is it easier to fix up a deformed lead keel and the relatively minor hull-keel damage or is it easier to deal with the consequences of the collision energy dissipating into the hull at the hull-keel interface?

Nice theories. :D

If you think the keel is going to deform enough to absorb the energy with relatively minor hull-keel damage then I hope you never hit hard - the boat stops dead and all the energy goes up the trailing edge against the hull - the deformation is a small part of the damage.

With iron the forces have to move the whole boat - up and sideways. The boat doesn't absorb all the force into it's structure. My Columbia displayed zero damage from hitting hard enough to gouge deep grooves into the iron. I had the keel off decades later and there was absolutely no indication of any damage or repairs.

I still say Garden was right. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MiddayGun said:

We know that Force = Mass x Acceleration, so the faster the boat stops the more force is acting on it, and for an iron keel to ricochet it backwards in the same time that a lead keel  would stop it requires more force still.

I've never seen a boat "bounce backward" after hitting a rock - they do everything BUT that - lift, slew around, go sideways etc.

Bottom line here is that I've never seen an iron keel boat severely damaged by grounding but many, many lead keels trashed.

Is the topic Bennie an iron keel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Nice theories. :D

If you think the keel is going to deform enough to absorb the energy with relatively minor hull-keel damage then I hope you never hit hard - the boat stops dead and all the energy goes up the trailing edge against the hull - the deformation is a small part of the damage.

With iron the forces have to move the whole boat - up and sideways. The boat doesn't absorb all the force into it's structure. My Columbia displayed zero damage from hitting hard enough to gouge deep grooves into the iron. I had the keel off decades later and there was absolutely no indication of any damage or repairs.

I still say Garden was right. :P

Nope! :)

Lets assume both keels identical footprint where they touch the hull, one is cast iron, one is lead, lets pretend both are the same weight, have the same number of keel bolts of the same size & in the same location & the structure of the boat is the same on both.

One brings the boat to a halt from 5 knots to zero in around 1 second. (The  lead keel)
The other brings the boat to a halt & then bounces it backwards at lets say 2 knots, again in 1 second.

The keel in either case has to transmit the force through the keel bolts, which boat experiences the greater force?
 

Edit: Okay bouncing backwards is unlikely, but the point is the energy has to go somewhere, in the case of a glancing blow either would probably be fine.


I think the bennie in this case is a cast iron keel. Its pretty rusty in some of the photos.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MiddayGun said:

Hmm sounds like the opposite to me.
The lead keel dissipates the energy from the grounding by deforming the lead, and the boat stops dead.

With the iron keel, no deformation, all kinetic energy of the impact is reflected back into the structure of the boat, hence bouncing off rather than just stopping.

Yes, this is the way it works. The softer material (lead) deforms more, deforming the keel itself, but absorbing energy in doing so. 

I looked at 2 Yamaha 30's with cast iron keels recently. Both had identical types of failures of the keel grids as the Beneteau. For our sailing co-op, with semi frequent groundings, we decided that these were not the boats for us.

Jon, I suspect your Columbia was better built than typical Beneteau - and you're wrong that cast iron keels are more forgiving.

There's a reason that car bumpers are now plastic shells over soft foam these days instead of the heavy chromed steel monsters of the 70's - it's all about softer materials deforming and absorbing energy. For the same reason bike helmets have a think shell over foam. You want the material to deform and absorb energy.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zonker said:

That was a small bilge sump that was glassed into a recess into the top of the keel. It was molded separately from the hull. Actually not that big a deal.

Have the same thing on my Jeanneau.  It will be a pain in the butt getting the new sump to match the top of the keel, but not the end of the world.  I can see why it broke off the boat - there is a very large bonding area there.  You would have to carefully break the bond before trying to remove the keel.  I guess they didn't do that.

Not sure how the economics of this project work.  If they paid $50K for a boat that would be $250K if it was in good condition, will they be able to bring it back to good condition for less than 200K?  Not sure about that. 

Still, if they do it right, they could have a better than new one.  Depending on the model, I would hesitate to take the current design of Beneteau's offshore.  The name "Oceanis" does not necessarily mean you should take it in the ocean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MiddayGun said:

Nope! :)

Lets assume both keels identical footprint where they touch the hull, one is cast iron, one is lead, lets pretend both are the same weight, have the same number of keel bolts of the same size & in the same location & the structure of the boat is the same on both.

One brings the boat to a halt from 5 knots to zero in around 1 second. (The  lead keel)
The other brings the boat to a halt & then bounces it backwards at lets say 2 knots, again in 1 second.

The keel in either case has to transmit the force through the keel bolts, which boat experiences the greater force?
Edit: Okay bouncing backwards is unlikely, but the point is the energy has to go somewhere, in the case of a glancing blow either would probably be fine.

I think the bennie in this case is a cast iron keel. Its pretty rusty in some of the photos.

 

2 hours ago, Zonker said:

Yes, this is the way it works. The softer material (lead) deforms more, deforming the keel itself, but absorbing energy in doing so. 

I looked at 2 Yamaha 30's with cast iron keels recently. Both had identical types of failures of the keel grids as the Beneteau. For our sailing co-op, with semi frequent groundings, we decided that these were not the boats for us.

Jon, I suspect your Columbia was better built than typical Beneteau - and you're wrong that cast iron keels are more forgiving.

There's a reason that car bumpers are now plastic shells over soft foam these days instead of the heavy chromed steel monsters of the 70's - it's all about softer materials deforming and absorbing energy. For the same reason bike helmets have a think shell over foam. You want the material to deform and absorb energy.

Over the years I've owned 2 boats with cast iron fins, 3 boats with lead fins and 1 with encapsulated lead.

3 of them grounded by various skippers - 1 of each type. 2 of those hits were dead stop type.

The only one to be damaged was a lead fin.

Since my personal experience conforms to his ideas, I'll go with Bill Garden and his unmatched experience over kinetic theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

No-one told them to seal off the other areas of the boat before they started grinding?

They are going to itch for years, if not the rest of their lives.

Looks like they are doing the repair right - that boat has a good chance to be much better than stock.

I've only skimmed the vid - anybody know what they paid?

 

2 hours ago, Marcjsmith said:

Ive been following them as well. I think 50k was the price. 

The cracking glass when they dropped the keel was sickening...

Somewhere in the comments they said they paid over $50k but under $100k. I’m guessing much closer to $100k, since they won’t just come out and say it. They know they are way over where they should be. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a lot of sweat equity (say a few months) 5-10K for glass and epoxy, and a 5-10K for yard fees for a few months. A few thousand for consumables and PPE.

It's only when you're paying yard rates for repairs that it becomes a write off. (Say 3 people x 3 months x 22 days/month x 8 hrs/day x $100/hr = $158,000)

It will be built better if they can the hull to match the grid shape. The grid will be glassed in place and this is a better bond than a blog of Plexus.

However if they are cutting the tops of the stringers that is bad news. Those top flanges on other Beneteaus I have knowledge of are unidirectional e-glass fiber. They act as the top flange of a beam with the hull acting as the bottom flange. Cutting them and them replacing with non-uni is much weaker. 

1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

The only one to be damaged was a lead fin.

So you have a sample size of 1?

If the boats were all identical or pretty similar with similar hull and transverse keel floor construction, similar hull thickness, etc. then I'd listen to you. 

Bill was a pretty clever guy and I love his aesthetic taste but I don't think he had great engineering skills.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

So you have a sample size of 1?

If the boats were all identical or pretty similar with similar hull and transverse keel floor construction, similar hull thickness, etc. then I'd listen to you. 

Bill was a pretty clever guy and I love his aesthetic taste but I don't think he had great engineering skills.

No, I have a personal sample size of 3 - and I don't know how many others in various boatyards over the past 45 years.

The two fins were of very similar construction - conventional early 70's roving over transverse floor formers tied into longitudinal stringers glassed to the single skin hull.

The lead did the usual chewing up the toe of the keel and levering the back of the keel up like a centerboard trying to close.

The iron had no effect - how much of a hit would it take to scrape numerous 1/4" deep gouges into cast iron?

And re: his engineering skills, I never heard of a keel falling off one of Gardens boats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The phyics is straightforward. All other things being equal, in a grounding a lead keel will suffer more damage than an iron keel, but the boat with the iron keel will suffer more damage than the boat with the lead keel.

It depends where you want the damage......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is how are they going to bring the grid and hull together?  There are some significant gaps.  The hull is blocked up which seems like it would cause distortion.  I would guess when Beneteau joined the hull and grid the hull is still in the mold to maintain the correct shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the grid became detached from the hull in the areas where the hull flexed due to the grounding, is that an argument for this kind of construction? Would a stiffer hull have broken or lost the keel? My current boat does not have a grid but my last one did so this is all curiosity on my part.

I have to give the guy credit for showing that he ground through the hull, I would have been too embarrassed!

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, alphafb552 said:

Squid, I hope you realize that the boat underwent repair for serious damage after a grounding - so not all the horrors you see should be blamed on Beneteau without more detailed info

watched the WHOLE series unlike most commenting. Yes, understood, thus my comment "are you f'ing kidding me this isn't all post grounding drunken dishonest yards BS" acknowledging the yard's terrible work. I'm also saying Beneteau has whole sections where there is no bond, or the bond released bringing no "bonded" material with it thus not bonded, or places where the bonding never even touched one side. Clearly visible in the application pattern of the uncompressed bonding material. Amazing.

There is no way to tell using this construction method whether you did a good bonding without destructive testing.

Then some knucklehead comments this material behavior can be expected in boats? NO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Learned to sail cruisers on a Beneteau 37 including in some gnarly conditions and she seemed to handle them ok to me, noticed a more cheap ikea feeling in the interior, hard to describe, seemed flimsy somehow and charmless. I like the 80s built Firsts though, you see them around and they seem to last well. was considering something like a first 25 but I need twin keels to take the ground here

I came across this SA thread from 2016:

Bendytoys - the good, the bad & the ugly

Some choice quotes relevant to video

Quote

DrewR:

I know first hand since I was at the helm what happens to 40.7 when it hits hard at hull speed. The grid breaks away and 'absorbs' the impact. The owner is left with a huge insurance hassle. Almost the entire interior has to be removed to fix correctly, if correctly is even possible. The boat I was on was being navigated by a pro, "don't worry, keep going, I know these waters like the back of my hand...", Smack. I bent the wheel with my chest.
The boat was a mess. It was "fixed" in that everywhere they could, they reglassed the hull liner to the hull. There were areas that were inaccesible that were not fixed, but it wasn't my boat and I stayed out if it.

There was also at the Marina I keep my boat a bigger Bene that also ran aground. It was a total loss. The ins co sold it to someone who took months of grinding and it was also 'fixed'. I was aboard it before it was sold. Same situation as the 40.7, a total mess. This boat had a lot of shifted interior parts as well as a broken grid/hull connection. It only left the yard when the owner agreed to sign a doc stating the Yard had nothing to do with the repairs and they were in no way accountable for the repairs.

So to me, a Bene is boat waiting to meet the bottom.
 

Sounds like they should have been reading SA .. or talked to some yard workers first

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Not sure how the economics of this project work.  If they paid $50K for a boat that would be $250K if it was in good condition, will they be able to bring it back to good condition for less than 200K?  Not sure about that. 

Glasswork is very labour intensive so DIY gives some of the best bang for the buck cost savings.

9 hours ago, Zonker said:

Just a lot of sweat equity (say a few months) 5-10K for glass and epoxy, and a 5-10K for yard fees for a few months. A few thousand for consumables and PPE.

It's only when you're paying yard rates for repairs that it becomes a write off. (Say 3 people x 3 months x 22 days/month x 8 hrs/day x $100/hr = $158,000)

It will be built better if they can the hull to match the grid shape. The grid will be glassed in place and this is a better bond than a blog of Plexus.

However if they are cutting the tops of the stringers that is bad news. Those top flanges on other Beneteaus I have knowledge of are unidirectional e-glass fiber. They act as the top flange of a beam with the hull acting as the bottom flange. Cutting them and them replacing with non-uni is much weaker. 

This. At least they have a fairly new rig, engine, wiring, etc. That's the expensive stuff to DIY, fiberglass is cheap.

I was wondering if they used any special fibers in the grid - uni glass would definitely require more care and attention than the typical glass repair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, efrank said:

My question is how are they going to bring the grid and hull together?  There are some significant gaps.  The hull is blocked up which seems like it would cause distortion.  I would guess when Beneteau joined the hull and grid the hull is still in the mold to maintain the correct shape.

When they launched the boat after purchase they noticed the grid settle up tight against the hull, presumably as the keel pulled it down by gravity. Correction of deformation of the hull in the water compared to resting on the keel and stands in the yard may have also played a role. I thought this may offer an option for the final bonding of the grid to the hull. Get the keel back on and the boat water tight, settle the boat a bit on the keel, then squirt slow cure bonding agent in the gaps. Launch or put the boats on slings and let the keel hang as you glass the stingers in place. It would take timing and a lot of coordination with the yard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having skimmed through the series I was struck by 3 things:

1. Youtube monetization sucks. Too many 5 minute videos stretched to 10 or 15 for that sweet mid roll ad money.

2. I are only peripherally involved in such things, but even I know beard and respirator do not go well together.

3. They seemed to grind off an unecessary amount of gelcoat.

  I suppose at least with that hole in the bottom they can come up with a giant clamp to hold the keel grid to the hull while the glue sets...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rain Man said:

 Depending on the model, I would hesitate to take the current design of Beneteau's offshore.  The name "Oceanis" does not necessarily mean you should take it in the ocean.

Not sure if you intended it to be, but that was effing funny

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Crusty said:

 

Somewhere in the comments they said they paid over $50k but under $100k. I’m guessing much closer to $100k, since they won’t just come out and say it. They know they are way over where they should be. 

I didn’t read the comments. I though I had heard 50k in one of the vids...my mistake.

one they start getting popular the  free/discounted products will start flowing in,  they will just to need to mount them in conspicuous locations and refer to them often. 

 Just look at  Sailing la vagabon, sailing uma, etc

 Its a matter of time.  

 Wish I had a nice ass and perky tits to film my refurbishment to hopefully monetize it.   They probably  spend just as much time working on the boat as they do editing the videos...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ROADKILL666 said:
On 10/31/2020 at 8:04 AM, justsomeguy! said:

And nobody's mentioned the man-bun.

Agreed that man-bun should be cut off

Best joke about those ludicrous things I've seen;

Imagine what a wolf would think if it knew a pug was it's direct descendant.

That's what your grandpa thinks when he sees your man-bun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Marcjsmith said:

 Wish I had a nice ass and perky tits to film my refurbishment to hopefully monetize it.  

If you did you'd never get anything done.

Trust me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fleetwood said:

The phyics is straightforward. All other things being equal, in a grounding a lead keel will suffer more damage than an iron keel, but the boat with the iron keel will suffer more damage than the boat with the lead keel.

It depends where you want the damage......

Physics says so.  If the energy dissipated deforming a lead keel is instead dissipated in the hull (there is nowhere else for it to go), that will mean more damage to the hull.  My lead-keel Dash 34 had several groundings all with significant damage - the lightweight cruciform structure that supported the keel happily delaminated from the hull, and there was delaminated glass in the hull at the back and front of the keel in all cases.  Thank heaven for Blackline Marine in Victoria. 

My current iron-keel boat had a grounding during its previous ownership.  It was certainly damaged - according to the ship's log, the bottom deflected enough to pull a hose off a through-hull.  Apparently, the seacock couldn't be closed - luckily they had wooden plugs (funny thing - you still can't close that seacock - I am replacing it this week).   The iron keel shows no signs of having been repaired anywhere  - I suspect it maybe had a scratch or two on it. 

This boat, however, has large lateral stringers glassed directly to the hull, and the structure is very easy to inspect.   We had our surveyor go over it very carefully before we bought it.  The boat does seem to flex longitudinally - I think it should have longitudinal stringers as well.  In any case, I'm not taking it anywhere other than coastal.  I wouldn't consider taking a boat like this offshore, though I know some people do.  

Having been offshore on a Beneteau, yeah, nah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rain Man said:

 

My current iron-keel boat had a grounding during its previous ownership.  It was certainly damaged - according to the ship's log, the bottom deflected enough to pull a hose off a through-hull.  Apparently, the seacock couldn't be closed - luckily they had wooden plugs (funny thing - you still can't close that seacock - I am replacing it this week).   The iron keel shows no signs of having been repaired anywhere  - I suspect it maybe had a scratch or two on it. 

This boat, however, has large lateral stringers glassed directly to the hull, and the structure is very easy to inspect.   We had our surveyor go over it very carefully before we bought it.  The boat does seem to flex longitudinally - I think it should have longitudinal stringers as well.  In any case, I'm not taking it anywhere other than coastal.  I wouldn't consider taking a boat like this offshore, though I know some people do.  

 

This was the state of the floors in my Eygthene 24 after a road trip of around 200 miles on a trailer, got to love under-specced design combined with shoddy British boatbuilding.

DSC00260.thumb.JPG.4cefd2dc0b3f43b549daf1c9ecb98008.JPGDSC00257.thumb.JPG.0d5f5ffbce602321ee24d1bc686d1781.JPGDSC00259.thumb.JPG.4d7d199e0c97f53e515dd0a0ee849002.JPG

 

And the front keelbolt:

DSC00512.thumb.JPG.a064d94a453f09db5166a66d9e534bd4.JPG

This was a cast iron keel by the way :P

I had to chop out a shitload of cabin to get to it & it was still weeks of awful, itchy and hot work. That one job convinced me to avoid any structural repairs in the future, & this was a really simple design of oak glassed floors.

DSC00261.JPG

DSC00258.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud their efforts, but that boat is forever going to be itchy. Better dust management, and use of 1” belt sanders to prep the grip for new glass would have gone a long way. 
 

im intrigued to see how their laminating goes, as well as material choices....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Physics says so.  If the energy dissipated deforming a lead keel is instead dissipated in the hull (there is nowhere else for it to go), that will mean more damage to the hull.  ...

I disagree that there's nowhere else for it to go: if the keel does not detach, nor the hull deform, the whole boat will rise (energy translated to lifting the boat by the keel) , pitch (energy depressing the bow into the water, creating waves) or otherwise move as the forward motion is translated into vertical, or even lateral, movement... hence a solidly built boat could suffer little damage at low speed, especially against a bottom with some give (mud/sand). Different story hitting granite head-on at speed, where the keel could be acting as a bumper ("fender") and the structure around it as a crumple-zone.

 So the strength of the keel attachment determines the amount of impact that the boat can survive without damage or with "easily" repaired damage but a relatively light, long keel is likely to be transferring more stress to a small attachment, whereas a shorter, heavier keel with a sturdy attachment structure (onto a lighter hull?) would mean lower and more distributed loads at impact...

Cheers,

               W.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I say good on-em for giving it a go. That’s a long road, though I do hope they make it.

Probably paid too much if over 50k. Going to learn quickly about PPE. Viewers seem to like boat work and talking heads on YouTube more than actual sailing, so they have that going for them.

Does the boat have a mast? 

If you are keen on watching boat work, here is another one for you:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

I disagree that there's nowhere else for it to go: if the keel does not detach, nor the hull deform, the whole boat will rise (energy translated to lifting the boat by the keel) , pitch (energy depressing the bow into the water, creating waves) or otherwise move as the forward motion is translated into vertical, or even lateral, movement... hence a solidly built boat could suffer little damage at low speed, especially against a bottom with some give (mud/sand). Different story hitting granite head-on at speed, where the keel could be acting as a bumper ("fender") and the structure around it as a crumple-zone.

 So the strength of the keel attachment determines the amount of impact that the boat can survive without damage or with "easily" repaired damage but a relatively light, long keel is likely to be transferring more stress to a small attachment, whereas a shorter, heavier keel with a sturdy attachment structure (onto a lighter hull?) would mean lower and more distributed loads at impact...

Cheers,

               W.

Sure, but we're discussing lead vs cast iron rather than the attachment method.

When Rainman says there is nowhere for it to go, he means it goes into the structure of the keel joint. If that force exerted doesn't exceed the limits of that structure then the boat will safely bounce off / up / around. But the force still goes through the joint, obviously as in the case of this Benetub, its not strong enough for the collision that occured and some of that energy was dissipated in fucking up the internal structure of the bottom.

Even if the a boat bounces upwards, sideways, whichever way, that's still a change in momentum, a 5 tonne boat that hits a rock at 5 knots and bounces upwards is experiencing a huge change in momentum, the force to make that change is being exerted through the keel hull attachment. In the case of a lead keel vs a cast iron one then if the lead keel absorbs some of the energy of the impact then it exerts less force on the keel joint.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I met a couple this summer who are rebuilding a storm damaged Hinckley SW-52. I think it fell off jack stands, at any rate got a big hole amidships on one side. They bought it as salvage.

They seemed very experienced, have lived aboard a Mason 43 or 44 for several years.

i think they did a lot of the interior disassembly themselves, then had the boat hauled to one of the very best Maine yards for the structural repair. 

They will end up with a fine boat, with an absolutely pedigreed repair done by experts well versed in epoxy, carbon, s-glass and vacuum bagging. 

As to the subjects of this thread, why on earth do they think they need a boat that big.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deep c said:

Got to wonder if they understand most usual stainless will corrode in an oxygen depleted environment like his rudder bearing. Might have been a reason for that G-10. 

+1.

I wondered about that as well. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I always thought it was a feature that J/Boats have an all-composite shaft.  Why add something that can corrode?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I met a couple this summer who are rebuilding a storm damaged Hinckley SW-52. I think it fell off jack stands, at any rate got a big hole amidships on one side. They bought it as salvage.

They seemed very experienced, have lived aboard a Mason 43 or 44 for several years.

i think they did a lot of the interior disassembly themselves, then had the boat hauled to one of the very best Maine yards for the structural repair. 

They will end up with a fine boat, with an absolutely pedigreed repair done by experts well versed in epoxy, carbon, s-glass and vacuum bagging. 

As to the subjects of this thread, why on earth do they think they need a boat that big.

They need a lot of space to store the dust.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I met a couple this summer who are rebuilding a storm damaged Hinckley SW-52. I think it fell off jack stands, at any rate got a big hole amidships on one side. They bought it as salvage.

They seemed very experienced, have lived aboard a Mason 43 or 44 for several years.

i think they did a lot of the interior disassembly themselves, then had the boat hauled to one of the very best Maine yards for the structural repair. 

They will end up with a fine boat, with an absolutely pedigreed repair done by experts well versed in epoxy, carbon, s-glass and vacuum bagging. 

As to the subjects of this thread, why on earth do they think they need a boat that big.

what shop in Maine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

Yes and sails in very good condition. Stored inside at the marina.

That’s good. Makes the ROI better! Cheering them along!

Another friend of ours did something similar to a Pearson 39, full grid rebuild. He’s in the water. Proof they will make it.

Have to give lots of props to their video quality. It’s hard to shoot and work. It probably adds 50% to the time needed to get a job done. We tried to film all of our boat work, but in the end prioritized getting in the water over making videos. The difference in camera work shows. Their editing is also on-point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, airacer said:

That’s good. Makes the ROI better! Cheering them along!

Another friend of ours did something similar to a Pearson 39, full grid rebuild. He’s in the water. Proof they will can make it.

Have to give lots of props to their video quality. It’s hard to shoot and work. It probably adds 50% to the time needed to get a job done. We tried to film all of our boat work, but in the end prioritized getting in the water over making videos. The difference in camera work shows. Their editing is also on-point. 

A small correction.  

Time will tell.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2020 at 12:31 AM, Zonker said:

Just a lot of sweat equity (say a few months) 5-10K for glass and epoxy, and a 5-10K for yard fees for a few months. A few thousand for consumables and PPE.

It's only when you're paying yard rates for repairs that it becomes a write off. (Say 3 people x 3 months x 22 days/month x 8 hrs/day x $100/hr = $158,000)

 

Plenty of ex-charter ~50ft Beneteaus available for around $150k.  I don't see this approach being cost effective.  Maybe if you some how value building an audience for future patreon contributions and they certainly are attractive enough.

  • Like 1
Link to post