# lead ballast vs iron/cement



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I notice most high quality sailboats have lead ballast but Caliber, which we''re interested in, uses iron and cement. What are the trade-offs? It seems like a very good quality boat for a reasonable price but I''m concerned about the ballast. Should I be? Larry Venezia


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I really cannot understand why a boat that is supposedly a ''quality long distance crusier'' would ever use concrete and iron ballast. While there is a difference in cost between a cast lead ballast keel and a concrete and iron one, the difference (probably less than $3 to $5K) makes absolutely no sense over the life of the boat and generally makes me wonder what other corners the builder has been cut. 

To answer your question, low density ballast is a major compromise. It means that much more ballast is needed to accomplish the same stability and that ballast comes at the price of increased displacement, increased drag, and often decreased carrying capacity. This greater weight and drag is not something to be ignored, it means that the sail plan has to be larger and the engine and fuel capacity needs to be larger. It means that you need to carry more sail in heavier going which is bad news since iron and concrete ballasted boats usually don''t have the stability to carry that extra sail. Adding weight and drag begins a design cycle that cumulatively just keeps making a boat heavier and heavier or else reduces the safety factors on the strength of the boat. 

Iron and concrete ballast also brings up the whole encapsulated keel debate. This is another one of those ‘no one universally right answers’ item. In other words an argument can be made for either type of keel. (For the record, I personally strongly prefer a bolt on keel rather than an encapsulated keel.) Here’s the way I see it. 

Bolt-on keels tend to offer more performance since the ballast must be cast and without the keel stub skin thickness tend to be lower relative to the center of bouyancy. They also have significantly less wetted surface and frontal area making them theoretically faster on all points of sail. They are simple to repair and generally can be repaired satisfactorily no matter how bad the mistake. 

On the down side they are more expensive to build; requiring precision casting, bolt hole drilling and a lot more hand fairing. They are higher maintenance requiring fairing every 10 years or so and new keel bolts at some point in the boat’s life. 

Encapsulated keels are less expensive to build. There’s less labor and less precision required. Boat builders will often use less expensive forms of ballasting with encapsulated keels, such as iron or lead scrap cast in concrete, resin or other binder which further reducing costs. If they are not damaged in a grounding, encapsulated keels are less expensive to maintain.

On the down side, as mentioned above they are less efficient from a sailing standpoint. Their real downside is the difficulty in doing a proper repair. Typically, in a hard grounding a number of things happen on an encapsulated keel. Typically the skin of the keel encapsulation gets ruptured and separates from the ballast. This allows water into the small cavities between the keel and the ballast and once wet it can mean the ‘beginning of the end’ for the boat as this permanently wet fiberglass blisters itself from the interior and the wet areas spread around the ballast. This is especially a problem on a boat that is hauled out for cold winters where freeze/ thaw cycles can really pry the skin loose from the ballast. The problem gets worse when the ballast contains ferrous materials. Here the ballast begins to rust and can reduce the ballast into a loose mass of concrete and rusting iron. Having watched a boat being rebuilt in which this had happened, I can assure that this is not a cheap process or one that I would want to go through. 

Beyond that, in a grounding the ballast is often forced upward as well. In an encapsulated keel the membrane of the hull is at the outside of the keel and the membrane above the ballast is often quite thin. In a bad grounding the ballast keel is often is pushed through this membrane causing a serious and difficult to repair damage and leak. 

We grounded a boat with an encapsulated keel that we never could permanently fix for as long as we owned the boat. The problem would get worse with every year, spreading from a small dimple on the leading edge of the keel to an area that was much of the bottom and sides of the keel.

Lastly, it is very hard to lay-up the glass in the keel cavity. As a result the glass work in this vulnerable area of the boat is often inferior to the glass work else where on the boat. 

To some extent this arguement is one of ultimate durability vs low maintenance. A bolt on lead keel will last forever but will require higher maintenance to do so. Sooner or later, an encapsulated keel will spell the end of the useful life of a boat, but will require less maintenance until the time that the ballast keel has delaminated from the keel cavity. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## SailorMitch (Nov 18, 2005)

I have discarded all my Caliber info (I made an offer on a 33 a couple of years ago, which was rejected), but I could swear that the ballast in Calibers is lead.  One reason I say this is because Caliber people always disparage Island Packets by pointing out that IP uses cement as part of their ballast. If you have a particular model/hull number in mind, call the factory and check with them on the construction. My brain could be failing, but I do recall that Caliber uses lead.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

My information came from Practical Boat Buying published by Practical Sailor, Vol. 2, 6th edition, page 325.


----------



## kablotsky (Sep 12, 2001)

My 1987 Caliber 28'' has lead ballast -- both bolted and encased in fiberglass. I understand that newer & larger Calibers also use lead ballast.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

If the ballast keel is encased, what is the ballast bolted to? 

Jeff


----------



## kablotsky (Sep 12, 2001)

The keel is bolted to the (bottom of the) hull, surrounded with fiberglass, and faired to the hull.


----------



## windship (May 4, 2002)

Jeff,
While ranting about how much you hate encapsulated keels(and Idon''t even think that was the question)you forgot to mention that with crap cement/iron ballast, the center of gravity is much higher which further screws-up things.
My boat(an Endeavour 32)which draws 4''2" has an encapsulated keel would be a breeze to repair. Because she is not a deep draft keel(like mabey a Pearson Vanguard?)and she does have many layers of fiberglass sealing off and holding the ballast in place in case of an under the surface collision.
Bolt-on keels can be very strong IF desined and built properly but the problem IS is that they rarley are.

Dennis


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

You are correct that I only mentioned the reduced stability, carrying capacity or higher drag implicit with a low density ballast in passing. 

Not to start a food fight, but for the record, your Endeavour 32 is only 4 inches shallower than a Vanguard, and as I have mentioned to you before, one of the boats that I have read a post on that drove its ballast keel up through its upper membrane was an Endeavour 32 (Do a search on CWBB around 1996/97, the discussion starts with a Watkins owned by a guy name Jerry with an encapsulated keel problem and in the course of that discussion there was a fellow with an Endeavour 32 trying to figure out how to do the repairs cheaply enough because the insurance company wanted to total his boat.)

Fair winds, Flat water, and favorable currents,
Jeff


----------



## windship (May 4, 2002)

Jeff,
yeah, I''d like to check that out. What do I type in the search space?
Thanks,
How do you think your boat would fair in a bad collision?
Dennis


----------



## windship (May 4, 2002)

Jeff,
yeah, I''d like to check that out. What do I type in the search space?
Thanks,
Before I comment I''d like to read it.However, I will say this,E 32''s, as you know, run about $15 to 35k, the centerboarders even less sometimes. So if by saying the insurance company wanting to total his boat was linked to the extence of the dammage, mabey his boat was only worth a little. Idon''t know. I also don''t know what was hit or how fast he was going. How many times in the past a collision accured. Was the ballast container filled with water, weak and delamiated. Was it a charter boat before.Who knows. You will just jump on any situation that makes you feel good about what you belive.
I''ve been in the sailing seen now for some twenty-five years which I know doesn''t come close to you but I have asked around- all around- and nobody in my imediate area has seen a ballast pushed up through the sealing membrane. I''m not saying that it doesn''t happen, but I am quite shure that it would take a violant collision to do what happened to this person''s E32.
And I don''t need ''fair winds,flat water and favorable currents'', I''ve been out in 10 to 12 footers with 45kts sustained wind and my E32 was splended. I know my boat is exactly what you hate but if you want to insult me and my boat, send me an email.
How do you think your boat would fair in a bad collision? Never mind I''ve seen and repaired plenty.

Dennis


----------



## serrado (Oct 25, 2020)

Hello to all users on this forum, I need help with a question. 
I intend to purchase a jeanneau sun fizz 40. The vessel has serious damage to the keel. 
After touching the bottom of the keel it cracked from top to bottom. the keel is made of iron cement, I am taking a budget for the repair, according to the shipyard, the crack should be filled with epoxy, then it will take 4 screws that will be recessed, coated again with epoxy and finally it will take gelcote. 
My question is whether anyone has ever had to do this type of repair for damage of this severity, and whether it guarantees the safety of the vessel. Thank you in advance for your feedback.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

serrado said:


> Hello to all users on this forum, I need help with a question.
> I intend to purchase a jeanneau sun fizz 40. The vessel has serious damage to the keel.
> After touching the bottom of the keel it cracked from top to bottom. the keel is made of iron cement, I am taking a budget for the repair, according to the shipyard, the crack should be filled with epoxy, then it will take 4 screws that will be recessed, coated again with epoxy and finally it will take gelcote.
> My question is whether anyone has ever had to do this type of repair for damage of this severity, and whether it guarantees the safety of the vessel. Thank you in advance for your feedback.
> ...


Wow! That is one seriously neglected bottom! I would be very cautious about buying a boat in that condition. I would be concerned about how long that crack has been there, and how much water has infiltrated the keel.

I assume the selling price reflects the risk you are taking. I would get multiple opinions and quotes on the repair before moving forward.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

If you can walk away or replace the keel. having it repaired would be a big gamble and you will never know when it might fail again in the future. cement iron keels are a cheap way that the manufactures used to save money instead of paying for a real cast iron or lead keel.


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

Encapsulated cast iron ballast isn't the best but it works for the long term. My old Westsail has a combination of lead and boiler punchings which are steel not iron. It's only 46 years and showed no signs of any problems when hauled last year. I personally bounced it off a finger of Hualalai lava and it's done three tours of SoPac so hasn't been a freshwater dock queen. Steel is much more prone to corrosion than iron, btw. Iron that has been buried for 2,000 years has been dug up and stilll recognizable. Yes I'd rather have lead ballast but will take any encapsulated ballast any day.

Don't meed corroded keel bolts, fouling and corrosion problems with keel itself and structural issues with external ballast.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

That looks like a bolt on cast iron keel. I would not consider a repair that consists of epoxy and 4 screws. Might be possible to drop the keel and then repair by welding, though welding cast iron is tricky. May need a new keel.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

There may be a translation issue happening here. In view of his flag avatar, it may be that English is not Serrado's native language. He may also have been better served by starting a new thread, rather than adding on to one that is more than 14 years old and not about his situation. A cast iron keel is not the same as a cement/iron keel. The crack visible in the photo looks like something that might be possible with a cast iron keel, not one that was encapsulated cement/iron punchings. The repair suggested (epoxy fillings, screws) would not apply to an encapsulated cement/iron keel.

Sailboatdata shows the Sun Fizz 40 has a cast iron keel. https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/sun-fizz-40-jeanneau This is typical of French cruising boats. An impact big enough to create such a crack in cast iron must have had an impact on the keel/hull joint and likely the hull as well. The two keel pieces will never be the same. The keel has been irreparably weakened and could break apart again despite any epoxy/screw repair. Think Cheeki Rafiki. Cheeki Rafiki - Wikipedia It is not a pleasant thought. A proper repair would mean removing this keel and securing a new replacement - difficult for a production boat last built in 1984. In addition to replacing the keel, the entire keel/hull joint and any interior floors or pan structures would need thorough inspection and likely repair. Depending upon how extensive the damage is - and whether it was already repaired properly before - This could easily cost much more than the boat is worth. On the positive side, these boats have a reputation for being well built, so perhaps the hull damage is more limited than one might think at first. In any case, the suggestion of reconnecting the two pieces - no matter how it is done - is suspect.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

serrado said:


> I intend to purchase a jeanneau sun fizz 40


I can't help but wonder how something like that happened. Thanks to paulk, for looking up the SunFizz. I didn't think Jeanneau used cement, but iron is common.

Sounds like you haven't bought it yet. Take a pause. Have you owned a keelboat before? What's the attraction to this one? I wonder if the price seems right and you're being sold on a cheap fix. There is zero chance I would ever sail on someone else's boat that had the fix you're describing. She simply needs a brand new keel. If that fits in the budget and you've had a thorough and professional, independent survey for other structure damage, then maybe.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

It is hard to diagnose the extent of damage solely from an internet photo. As others have suggested, that keel appears to be cast iron and given the location and length of the cracking, the keel does not appear to be reliably repairable with any solution that I can think of. Any bond that epoxy would make with cracked cast iron would lack sufficient strength to achieve a reliable structural connection of the two halves of the keel. Plus, as noted above, any impact that was great enough to crack a cast iron keel in that manner would be sufficient to badly damage the hull laminate and any internal structure. The problem is far worse if that is an iron./cement ballast. 

My best advise is to run, not walk as far from this deal as you can. That may look like a boat, but with that level of damage, it is no longer a boat. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------

