# Steel vs Fiberglass



## me262 (Apr 22, 2003)

I have looked at a Botter designed, custom made 38'' sloop that I am considering making an offer on. Up till now, I have limited my boat searching to fiberglass boats. Maybe it was unfounded, but I felt they would be more buoyant than anything else besides a wood hull. Outside of obvious rust intrusion, what else makes these boats undesirable vs a fiberglass boat? Thinking about it, repairs should be simpler, but at what cost? Seems to me that galvanic corrosion would be a BIG problem.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

This is exerpted from a previous discussion on this matter;

As I have said before, I am not a fan of metal boats. Compared to wood or glass I think they are way too heavy for the strength achieved and too difficult to maintain. They are noisy and prone to have problems that are not easy to get to and repair. For the distance cruiser any bonehead can carry and use glass or wood to repair wood or glass boats anywhere in the world. Welding a metal boat in some atoll on the backside of no-where is another story. 

There is a relatively small market in this country for metal boats; a bit in ignorance and a bit because metal boats really do not make sense for the venues that most of us sail in. While cruising people are a bit more open minded toward metal boats, I think metal boats will be a hard sell in this country for a long time making resale a bit difficult. Many of the metal boats that we see over here are crudely built hardchine affairs. The chines are often laid out without care for their visual impact. Cabin and deck structures are often rather primitive. Hardware is often painted galvanized steel. As they age they develop areas that have been dented in between ribs and other framing. It is not to say that there are not well built metal boats, but the perception of metal boats comes from the poor examples.

Amongst the proponents of Metal boats, much has been made of the ability of metal boats to bend rather than puncture. I think this is a little bit bogus. That may be true of the extremely heavy boats designed to workboat standards, but not really true of boats built to meet yacht standards which tend to be much lighter. These lighter weight metal boats use lighter weight skins spanning between a more closely spaced frame and stringer system. If the impact is on a frame you are more likely to bend the boat than puncture the skin but an impact next to a frame or between a frame is more likely to sheer the skin than bend it in any impact that would be hard enough to puncture the average fiberglass boat. 

The one advantage of steel is a higher abrasion resistance. In the unlikely event that you end up rubbing against a rock for hours on end without puncturing the skin, a steel skin can withstand abrasion better than glass. If you sail in an area where abrading against rocks is a serious problem then steel may make sense. I doesn''t for me.

Metal boats are seen as being very durable, but again in the weights of materials used in yachts I seriously question that idea. All boats flex; it is only a mater of degrees. Over time this flexing work hardens and fatigues the steel especially the skins at frames and other hard spots. Rust, mostly from the interior makes the skin thinner. Like any other material each boat has a real lifespan. It may exceed our own but it may not. It is true that fiberglass will also fatigue and weaken over time especially non-cored hulls which tend to flex more. It is true that cored f.g. hulls may eventually delaminate from the core or the core itself may sheer but in well-built boats this is a very long-term process. 

In a number of studies that I have seen over the years, steel is generally seen as being the most maintenance prone material out there, both long and short term. This is slightly offset by some of the exotic steels being used in the last couple years but for the most part, just like wood you need to keep the actual hull and framing protected from water and air. Unlike wood this means both inside and out. There are areas on a steel hull that are inaccessible but just because you can’t see them that does not mean that they aren’t deteriorating. Rust never sleeps and metal boats actually deterioate mostly from the interior out. 

Then there is electrolysis. This used to be the kind of problem that was a compelling reason not to own a steel boat. In the early 1970’s I worked in a boat yard that had to do an emergency hauling of a steel power boat to prevent it from sinking. This boat which had been launched weeks earlier in perfect shape had changed slips and was tied up next to a boat with an improperly grounded 110 electrical system and in a mater of days the bottom of the power boat in question had lost sufficient thickness and was covered with small pin holes that the boat needed entirely bottom plating. This kind of loss was not covered by insurance. Today, there are ways to completely combat the electrolysis problem but, in my mind, they are bandaides treating symptoms rather than real cures to the problem. 

My biggest gripe comes down to sailing ability and how this affects deck and cabin materials. Some of this goes away as the boat gets to be 45 feet or bigger. In boats under 45 feet, steel hulls are just plain heavier for a given strength than any other material except perhaps ferrocement. Weight in and of itself has no advantage at all. More weight means that you need to have more sail area for a given speed and a given sailing ability. More sail area means that a boat needs more stability to be able to stand to this bigger rig which means more ballast which means more weight which means more sailarea. The problem gets worse because steel boats often have steel topsides, steel decks and steel deckhouses. This is weight high above the center of buoyancy and as such reduces stability further making it hard to carry a decent sail area to weight ratio. In the ultimate bad sailing day, it also means that once inverted you are more likely to remain inverted longer. This problem is often addressed by the use of wooden deck and cabin structures. Deck and cabin structures are the area of greatest maintenance in a wooden boat and so you are just upping the amount of manitenance even further. 

To answer your question fairly I probably need to explain my own tastes and preferences. In fairness, I must point out that puncture resistance has never been a criterion by which I select a boat. My personal taste leans toward lighter boats. I have always been a proponent of buying a boat suited to your anticipated sailing conditions and in my case my sailing conditions are strictly coastal and do not include passages to remote areas. If you are looking at passages to the remote areas of the Pacific Southern Ocean, then puncture resistance becomes more critical and the ability to make repairs in a remote area becomes even more critical still. You may also sail in a windier environment that I and maybe able to tolerate a heavier boat. 

No matter what material you use, workmanship and quality materials will be critical. I do not believe that steel tolerates poor quality any better than any other material and since so much depends on the welds the welding needs to be top notch. Steel is not just one material but a family of iron based materials. How the metal is made, purified and alloyed affects initial strength, fatigue qualities and its resistance to corrosion. 

You often hear that steel can be built cheaply. Quality metal construction never was or is cheap. You could build a quality boat in almost any other as cheaply or for less. With advent of computer driven cutters and the more common availability of some of the newer (last 15 years) welding techniques steel has come down in price to the point that custom steel boats maybe less expensive than custom boats in many other materials. The problem in saying steel is cheap is that simple hard chine steel boats with workboat levels of finish are often compared to yacht quality boats of other finishes. Probably a comparable and less expensive construction is glass over sheet plywood. Properly done this can actually be a far stronger and less puncture resistant material than steel. Glassed inside and out with quality laminates and epoxy resins, the plywood boat would have far and away less maintenance costs and would have a much lighter hull weight than steel, thereby having considerably better sailing characteristics in all ways. 

I think much of the answer in picking a metal boat comes from picking the right designer.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, most of the questions in sailing have no one right answer. That does not keep people like me from having strong preferences and opinions. My opinion suits me, and the way that I choose to sail, very well. It may not suit you at all. It is easy for someone to refute my opinion on some other criteria than my own. As I have said before on this BB, ultimately that debate can have no more substance than a trying to prove that Vanilla ice cream is inherently superior tasting than strawberry ice cream, (which is why these are called ''opinions''). 

Good luck
Jeff


----------



## dameware (Jul 21, 2003)

How about an opinion from someone who hit a rock while sailing their steel sailboat in a southern Chile waterway, in their words – found this online; 

“Adventure cruising down Chile’s exciting southern waterway, we chose to make a side trip up one of the many fiords. Like most, this one was uncharted. “Must be as deep as the hills are high around us,” Margaret and I agreed. The crew of an approaching local fishing boat waved enthusiastically as we tacked from shore to shore against a fine breeze. 

Those fishermen were really waving their hands in the air at us. “Guess they’ve never seen a sailboat with such good windward ability,” I thought as we left them rapidly astern. If we hadn’t dusted them so completely, perhaps we would have seen their hands go down onto their heads and then over their ears. Full sail and at some seven knots of boat speed, 13 tons of Skookum plowed onto a pile of sharp glacial boulders lurking below the surface. 

Was the boat holed due to this colossal blunder? Was the keel parted from the hull? Was the rudder torn off? Was that the end of our cruise? Well, there was a loud bang, we felt the cockpit rapidly rise then suddenly fall, but on we sailed, red-faced and with sails luffing to slow us down. Skookum’s full keel tapers down to a 2 1/2-inch-diameter solid-steel bar. That and the heavier keel plating probably made more impression on the rocks than the rocks did on us. A boat of other material could have sustained trip-terminating damage. Once again, my decision to build in steel had paid off.”

site url; http://old.cruisingworld.com/steelpay.htm


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

You see these kind of anecdotal comments written around the internet but pound for pound, steel is not as strong as composite construction, or in other words, a composite boat of equal weight to Skookum would have been stronger than the steel boat. The perception that composites are not as strong as steel comes from comparing steel hulled boats to lighter weight glass boats. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It comes back to the same theme - what do you expect to be doing with the boat? If you expect to be sailing full tilt into uncharted rock filled waters, by all means buy a steel boat with a 2.5" thick solid steel keel. If you expect to spend almost all your time at anchor buy a boat with maximum volume, able to hold all the systems that give the conveniences of home (when they are working). If you enjoy the pure pleasure of sailing buy one that puts a smile on your face when the sails are up and the engine is off.

Every sailboat is a mix of these factors. The trick is deciding which balance suits you. One could speculate that there are far more fiberglass boats than other materials because the market has decided they represent the best compromise, for most uses. Not necessarily for banging rocks in Chile of course.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Wow...Sounds like "pound for pound" strength is being confused as meaning more durable. Steel is the toughest boat building material out there. I doubt any credible architect will say different. If you know one post his name.

Strength wise you can build a composite boat to be as strong...but not as durable. Pound for pound, put any professionally designed/built steel boat against any prof designed/built composite boat on a reef and see what happens. Let them sit a few days with a ground swell and drag them off. Steel will win 99% of the time. 

Or you can do what I did...ask an operator at BASRA (Bahama Air Sea Rescue) which boats historically take groundings best based on their rescues and reports. Empirical data (and anecdotal data will concur) says from best to worst: steel, wood, fiberglass, concrete. Steel being the only material that usually stayed together and refloated...but was dented, etc. Concrete crumbled to tiny pieces quickly. They see several boats a week sink from hitting their heavily reefed cruising grounds.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Billpjr 

It''s often been commented that "every boat is a compromise", and the art of buying the right boat is understanding your priorities so that you buy the compromise that best fulfills your set of priorities.

I guess if the ability to run aground with minimal damage is your top priority, then steel construction may be the right compromise for you. I do think most sailors'' priorities reflect some combinations of performance, maintainability, and cost, which explain why perhaps 99% of US sailboats are not metal. 

Good luck.


----------



## me262 (Apr 22, 2003)

Now I understand completely!!!!! 

Seriously though, I like to use this forum as y''all have very relevant and educated thoughts on lotsa subjects. Thanks for taking the time to sink my plans for a steel hull boat. Guess I''ll just steer the couse I had planned with my Albin Vega and quit looking at something bigger and better(?). 

Thanks again and I hope y''all have a Happy New Year!!!!!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailingfool,
I''m not sure why you are preaching to me about compromises...my post was merely to point out how a steel boat survives next to other materials in extreme conditions and provide credible, unbiased data from a respected maritime agency. Me262 has to decide what his use is going to be and what compromises are best for him...I''m not going there.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Look at this site:

http://www.windpilot.de/en/Se/Yacht/materien.html

Very sensible comparison between different types of materials used fot building yacht hulls, including advantages and disadvantages of each material.

Paulo


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

right on billpjr couldn`t agree more.I can stand on a glass and I can stand on a tin can. Drop one on the floor and you can guess the rest.What the issue becomes is what doesn`t bend breaks.I have worked as a machinist for years so I probably sound one sided however the facts are the facts.


----------



## eds928gt (Sep 28, 2001)

If the intended use of a boat includes sailing in areas with pacj ice, then a steel boat is likely to be best overall. If however, you don''t plan to sail in areas where your fiberglass hull could be crushed, then fiberglass is likely to be best overall.

Surviving a hard grounding is something every captain tries desperately to avoid. Thus, I wouldn''t factor it into the equation of "best overall".

No doubt others have mentioned the pluses and minuses of each material. It seems clear the market vastly prefers fiberglass.

Therefore, I think that unless you like doing lots of maintenance (scraping and painting) or absolutely must sail through pack ice, a fiberglass boat will probably be the "best" choice for you too.

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

If we want to get into what the market prefers I guess we will be buying our boats from China with the rest of the things we buy.The market has been selling us junk but if it is cheap junk the vast majority of people will buy it.The only reason I sail fiberglass for cruising is simply I cannot afford aluminum.And before anyone jumps all over My choice with their personal reasons I am well informed with materials and it becomes economics.Fiberglass is still a good material for most people and like any of these opinions it is you that will be doing the buying.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

dman I am with you on that one.

Fiberglass is simply the cheapest way to mass production boats, that''s why it dominates the market, cause it can produce cheap boats.

I am not saying fiberglass boats are bad and I agree with Jeff about not making sense to build steel boats under 40ft, but I am with you in what regards alluminium.

Do you know this one?

http://www.atlanticyachts.nl/

Paulo


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

nice stuff I just need to come up with 7 numbers tonight and I am set.Heading off to the corner store right now.


----------



## wrevans (Dec 25, 2003)

Jeff_H said: “You see these kind of anecdotal comments written around the internet but pound for pound, steel is not as strong as composite construction, or in other words, a composite boat of equal weight to Skookum would have been stronger than the steel boat. The perception that composites are not as strong as steel comes from comparing steel hulled boats to lighter weight glass boats.”

This is one of the few times that I actually disagree with Jeff. I think the statement that “pound for pound, steel is not as strong as composite construction” is also anecdotal.

In my experience as an Aerospace Structural Engineer this was the typical sale pitch for composites. We were comparing steel, aluminum and titanium with fairly hi-tech graphite epoxy prepreg composites and we often struggled to obtain equivalent strength. He is the reason. Metals are isotropic materials. This means that their tension, compression and shear strength are for the most part unchanged with changes in the orientation of the material. This is quite the opposite of composite. Actually it is one of the reasons that composites were developed, to orientate the material strength in the direction of the internal loads. This works great for certain structures and not so great for others. What often ends up happening is that a composite structure is laid up to develop pseudo isotropic properties. That is a lay-up of 0/90 and +45/-45 degree plies. This is only pseudo isotropic since the properties end up only being equivalent in the 0 and 90 degree direction. Also the transverse properties of a composite laminate are basically just that of the resin. This defeats many of the strength to weight advantages of composites. There is an additional factor which isn’t mentioned often about composites. The have quite a large strength reduction factor do to moisture absorption and elevated temperature.


So I guess to wrap this up, I think if you looked at advertised vendor data for unidirectional prepreg composites with out moisture and elevated temperature reductions, the strength to weight properties of most composites would blow most metals away. If you compared the properties of an assembled laminate with the proper strength knock down factors with metallic structures I think you might pick you material based on other characteristics (like durability, cost, ease of use etc) because strength to weight would not be an overwhelming feature.

Bill


----------



## dman (Dec 25, 2004)

I could have said all that but I didn`t,Yeah right.If I am ever designing a spaceship make sure you call me, my head is still spinning from that one,must have fallen asleep in that class.One hell of alot of information.Could you really simplify that for a good old country boy. good stuff thanks


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

As I have posted before....

"It is said among dedicated blue water cruisers in the South Pacific, 50% of the boats are metal; the rest of them are from the United States...."

Depending on fiberglass and composite hulls is like playing Russian roulette, especially in warm, tropical climes or anywhere near water.

CT~~~ Proud and satisfied owner of a 53'' Fast Passage ALUMINUM Cutter.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Dman,

like you and for the same reason I have a fiberglass boat, but the Atlantic 38 is not a 7 number digit boat. It costs around 350 000 euros, including 19% VAT.

The French are now beginning mass production Aluminum boats and the new Allures 40 cost around 250 000 euros and the Ovni 395 even less. I think that in a near future the prices of Aluminum boats are going to come down.

Paulo


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

First, it''s a shame that ''steel'' is the focus of this thread and that metal boats are mostly discussed generically, when in fact there is a great deal to distinguish aluminum from steel, both pro and con, including cost.

Second, let''s assume we have a magic switch that we can flip and which affects our ability to view boats thru-out the Pacific Ocean. If we flip it one way, it gives us a 40,000'' view of ONLY self-built boats sailing in the Pacific. Looking down, we would be able to see that a large percentage of them (tho'' perhaps not a majority) are going to be steel, with some others being wood or wood/composite and a still others being of other materials, including aluminum. Now we flip the switch in the other direction and can view only non-self-built boats: only a small fraction of them will be metal. Whether we like it or not, a fair conclusion to reach is that the choice of a metal boat is driven by factors other than the kind of sailing we plan on doing.

So rather than only talking about metal as a suitable material based soley - or even principally - on intended use, we could instead talk about metal as a likely choice based on whether a given sailor with Pacific ambitions, shopping in his/her marketplace, will either build or buy a self-built boat.

Does it make sense to self-build, based on the desire for a metal boat and given only a moderate budget? The summary comment below on the wisdom of deciding to self-build when choosing an offshore cruising boat, has been said before on this and other BB''s; I''m taking it from www.mahina.com simply because of its brevity.

"Home building makes the least sense unless you are an experienced boat builder and are not concerned about time and expenses. Home-built boats generally end up costing more than a well-built used boat, are usually much more difficult to sell when you''ve completed your cruise [and] frequently have a lower resale value than a comparable production boat."

BTW if we took our magic switch with us and did the same thing from 40,000'' over N European and Med waters, we''d find a higher percentage of non-selfbuilt metal boats. And you will note this is without the predominant rock & coral that supposedly justifies metal hulls, and also despite the cruising grounds being far more developed (nav aids, harbor berths, etc.) than in the Pacific. This is because there are more Euro yards building in metal, both steel and aluminum, to a very high level and because the Euro marketplace embraces metal more readily than elsewhere (e.g. North America).

Of course, all this is just cheering from the grandstands and boat buying is usually not driven by one''s ultimate materials preferences and ''some day'' cruising dreams. In truth, most cruising boat buyers start off with neither a firm itinerary nor much long-term cruising experience. What they do have is a rather firm purchase budget, a desire for a certain level of amenities and quality of finish, and they limit themselves to boats which are regionally available...which reduces the diversity of their choices in an absolute sense, but makes the logisitcs of the purchase easier. They will then pick from this subset of choices based on cost and preferences as stated.

Where there is a diverse selection of metal boats at more affordable cost - and where their acceptability/desirability is greater and they are viewed as suitable for the intended mission, metal becomes a more feasible choice in the real world of boat buying. But those places are niche markets, and its clearly a case of Mohammed needing to go to the mountain for most boat shoppers who want to consider a diverse collection of affordable metal boats.

Finally, I think it''s a fair statement to say that, when looking at metal boats being purchased over any given time period, most of them are going to be either self-built (to include finished out by the owner from a bare hull/deck) OR they are going to be relatively expensive relative to all boats of that size/class. If someone else''s project boat isn''t what you want, and you have a purchasing budget that is like the rest of us mere mortals, you will probably end up with a fiberglass boat, having chosen it from a relatively large, diverse collection of mostly fiberglass choices. There are exceptions to this statement and there is certainly some geographic variability, but not enough to impeach the general conclusion, I believe.

Jack


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Nice post Whoosh, but perhaps I was misunderstood.

I have not said that fiberglass boats will not continue to dominate the market. I think they will, because they will continue to be the cheapest boats available.

What I have said is that Aluminum boats will be less expensive in the near future (in fact they are already less expensive than they used to be) because there are some European boat builders that have begun to build them not (as it was usual) boat by boat, but several at the same time, with the help of very sophisticated machinery.

Of course it will never be mainstream, and they are a niche market, but that niche is the Voyage Oceangoing Boat market, that around here (Europe) represents a small part of the market.

I think that’s because you are not here that you underestimate the growing importance of the Aluminum boat market in that particular niche.

In the Special edition of "Voile Magazine", one of the big French sail magazines, it was made, as usual, a selection of the more meaningful boats to the French market, according to categories: Between 7 and 8m; Between 8 and 9 and so on.

In the categories of "Bateaux de Voyage" they select and analyze these boats: Ovni 395; Feeling 39; Manatea 425; JBP 40; Allures 40; Alliage 41; RM 1200; Foxy 40; Hermine 40; Generic 35; Mercator 40; JFA 45; , Rêva 42; Allures 44; Ovni 435; UY 435 and Alliage 44.

Of all those boats only three are not aluminum boats. One is a wood and epoxy boat, one is a cored (airex) fiberglass boat and the other is a Balsa cored fiberglass boat. 

To the average French sailor the ideal "Voyage boat" is an Aluminum boat.

About the price, let me say that they are not more expensive than the comparable fiberglass boats that are made for the same use: " Grand voyage" ( same tanks capacity, rigs and sails adapted to deep ocean conditions, specially strong boats etc). 

Comparing prices - Aluminum and Fiberglass - “Bateaux de Voyage” - :

Aluminum : 

Ovni 395 - 209 300 euros; Allures 40 - 220 000 euros; Alliage 41 - 355 661 euros; Alliage 44 - 396 250 euros; Foxy 40 – 350 000 euros; Mercator 40 – 275 000 euros; Manatea 425 - 281 900 euros; Hermine 40 - 255 185 euros; Ovni 435 - 262 820 euros; Allures 44 - 285 000 euros; UY44 -305 000 euros, to mention only some of the French boats selected by the magazine (the Dutch have also several production Aluminum boats).

Fiberglass:

Hallberg-Rassy 40 - 342 056 euros; Halberg-Rassy 43- 448 319 euros; Island Packet 42 - 260 728 euros; Island Packet 445 - 338 468 euros; Najad 400 - 361 172 euros; Contest 44 - 645 242 euros; Nauticat 37 – 304 900 euros; Nordship 38 – 284 769 euros;
Nordship 42 - .431 756 euros; Sundbeam 39 – 320 331 euros; Sundbeam 42 – 415 026 euros; etc…

Off course you can not compare any of these boats with Mediterranean oriented boats, like the Bavarias, Dufours and Beneteaus not in strength, not in the price, but you can see that for that specific niche (Grand voyage ocean boats), the Aluminum is a real alternative, even in price.

Why do the French prefer the Aluminum versus an equivalent fiberglass alternative?

I think one of the motives is durability, other is (no) osmosis but I think that the main reason is resistance to impact.

In the last number of "Voiles et Voiliers" (French Magazine) they have rated an "hi-parade" of the risks during a "Grand-Croisiere":

1- Man overboard
2- Collisions
3- (Far away from the other two)- Stormy weather

I have read somewhere that the Aluminum is 40 times more resistant to perforation than fiberglass. I don’t know if the number is correct, but I don’t have any doubt that it is much stronger to impact.

Resistance to collisions with the always increasing quantity of things that are afloat or half submerged, like containers, resistance to the accidental collision with rocks and grounding in distant and badly surveyed anchorages), that''s why they prefer Aluminum …………………………………………………....and it doesn’t look a bad choice to me.



Paulo


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Paulo, you''ve done others a service by listing many models and builders which feature aluminum boats. And as you say, they are a wonderful alternative for long-range cruising. You''ve also underscored my point: France is one of those niche markets where those kinds of boats appeal...even if it isn''t representative of the marketplace most boat buyers will buy from.

OTOH I don''t think your reference base of fiberglass boats are as representative as they should be. The Contests, H-Rs, Najads etc. are all high-end boats built in the most expensive area of the EU (IP boats fit into the same category in the U.S.), whereas e.g. Alubat''s boats are well built and innovative but not to the same level of finish nor with the same subsequent worldwide resale value.

Aluminum, properly designed & built, is a good choice as a hull/deck material. It''s not the only choice. And for most people in most regions of the world, it isn''t a feasible choice due both to availability and cost. Who knows...as petroleum becomes ever more precious and the world continues to shrink, perhaps this will change in two or three decades.

Jack


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

A friend ( ex coast Guard) who has cruised in a steel boat for a while was given a fibreglass 40 footer. He said all the stock gear on it was so fragile and flimsy looking that he decided to stay with the steel boat. He tried spending a night on her in winter and it constatly dripped so much condensation that he quickly went back to his steel boat. For anyone who has cruised extensively in a steel boat, the fragility of the stock bolted down yachty gear is scary.


----------



## garritt (Oct 12, 2002)

again performance is of minimal importance.....if you can sail off of the danger into the wind ...without a engine....it is a safe boat (unlike the old morgan 41's ect)....you need draft.....low freeboard & a narrower beam........need more room get a longer boat...........performance may mean that you can point a little higher & tact quicker , but when the **** hits the fan I want a full long keel with a protected rudder...............so what if you spend a few more hours or even a day longer getting to your next port...........YOU ARE SAILING & that is what you are doing out there.............don't worry if you loose a little performance with a STEEL boat......( you can always fly to a destination & rent a boat........................................... important ....is condition......& design......MOST important is a HIGHLY educated captain & crew..........experience is important , but most people circumnavigating...(1) have no business out there & make it anyways.......( people go over niagra falls in barrows & have always made it since the 1930's)....(2).either their boat is not a good design to make the trip......(My friends met a macgregor 25 15 days out off of the galapagos out of food & water...) .or (3) they do not have the abilities to properly maintain a boat ................................ so get a steel boat....get well educated.......get a watermaker & life raft ....and SHEET IN......................


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Did we seriously restart this argument and thread under the exact same title?! Any way to combine?


----------

