# Life expectancy of fiberglass?



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I love the older design glass yachts that took there form from the wooden classics that S & S etc would have drawn. They are mostly 30 + years old now, are we to assume that, with upkeep, they will last indefinately?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If the fiber mites do not get to em they will last a long time

walt Ward


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

this was my fear in restoring a 31 year old boat(same age as me). but alas, as long as they''re well built to begin with, they should have no problems I feel. unfortunately, the rest of the boat doesn''t last nearly as long. ultimately I replaced almost everything but the ''glass and mast. and some of the interior.
I also love the older designs. but thankfully, some of the decent builders have generally not messed with the lines of their newer models.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I would not think that a well- constructed fiberglass has a life span per se. Neither concrete nor fiberglass truly breaks down or loses strength on their own. They require other causes. In the case of fiberglass loss of strength can result from one or more of the following, 

-The surface resins will UV degrade. 
-Prolonged saturation with water will affect the byproducts formed in the hardening process turning some into acids. These acids can break down the bond between the glass reinforcing and the resin.
-Fiberglass is prone to fatigue in areas repetitively loaded and unloaded at the point where it is repetitively deflected. High load concentration areas such as at bulkheads, hull/deck joints and keel joints are particularly prone.
-Salts suspended in water will move through some of the larger capillaries within the matrix. Salts have larger molecules than water. At some point these salts cannot move further and are deposited as the water keeps moving toward an area with lower moisture content. Once dried these salt turn into a crystalline form and exert great pressure on the adjacent matrix.
-Poor construction techniques with poorly handled cloth, poorly mixed or over accelerated resins, and poor resin to fiber ratios were very typical in early fiberglass boats. These weaker areas can be actually subjected to higher stresses that result from much heavier boats. It’s not all that unusual to see small spider cracking and/or small fractures in early glass boats.
-Of course beyond the simple fiberglass degradation there is core deterioration, and the deterioration of such things as the plywood bulkheads and flats that form a part of the boat’s structure.

Earlier boats had heavier hulls for a lot of reasons beyond the myth that designers did not know how strong fiberglass was. Designers knew exactly how strong fiberglass was. The US government had spent a fortune developing fiberglass information during WWII and by the early 1950’s designers had easy access to the design characteristics of fiberglass. (Alberg, for example, was working for the US Government designing composite items when he designed the Triton and Alberg 35) The reason that these hulls on the early boats were as thick as they were had more to do with the early approach to the design of fiberglass boats. Early designers and builders had hoped to use fiberglass as a monocoque structure with a minimal amount (if any) framing to take up interior space. 

On its own, fiberglass laminate does not develop much stiffness and it is very dense. If you simply try to create stiffness in fiberglass it takes a lot of thickness. Early fiberglass boat designers tried to simply use the skin for stiffness with wide spread supports from bulkheads and bunk flats. This lead to incredibly heavy boats and boats that were comparably flexible. (In early designs that were built in both wood and fiberglass, the wooden boats typically weighed the same but were stiffer, stronger, and had higher ballast ratios) 

Fiberglass hates to be flexed. Fiberglass is a highly fatigue prone material and over time it looses strength through flexing cycles. A flexible boat may have plenty of reserve strength when new but over time through flexure fiberglass loses this reserve. There are really several things that determine the strength of the hull itself. In simple terms it is the strength of the unsupported hull panel (by ''panel'' I mean the area of the hull or deck between supporting structures) itself, the size of the unsupported panel, the connections to supporting structures and the strength of the supporting structures. These early boats had huge panel sizes compared to those seen as appropriate today. 

This fatigue issue is not a minor one. In a study performed by the marine insurance industry looking at claims on older boats and doing destructive testing on actual portions of older hulls, it was found that many of these earlier boats have suffered a significant loss of ductility and impact resistance. This problem is especially prevalent in heavier uncored boats constructed even as late as the 1980''s before internal structural framing systems became the norm. Boats built during the early years of boat building tended to use a lot more resin accelerators than are used today. They also would bulk up the matrix with resin rich laminations (approaching 50/50 ratios rather than the idea 30/70) non-directional fabrics (mat or chopped glass) in order to achieve a desired hull thickness. Resin rich laminates and non-directional materials have been shown to reduce impact resistance and to increase the tendency towards fatigue. The absence of internal framing means that there is greater flexure in these older boats and that this flexure increases fatigue further. Apparently, there are an increasing number of marine insurance underwriters refusing to insure older boats because of these issues.

There are probably other forms of hull degradation that I have not mentioned but I think that the real end of the life of a boat is going to be economic. In other words the cost to maintain and repair an old boat will get to be far beyond what it is worth in the marketplace. I would guess this was the end of more wooden boats than rot. I can give you a bit of an example from land structures. When I was doing my thesis in college, I came across a government statistic, which if I remember it correctly suggested that in the years between 1948 and 1973 more houses had been built in America than in all of history before that time. In another study these houses were estimated to have a useful life span of 35 years or so. As an architect today I see a lot of thirty five year old houses that need new bathrooms, kitchens, heating systems, modern insulation, floor finishes, etc. But beyond the physical problems of these houses, tastes have changes so that today these houses in perfect shape still has proportionately small market value. With such a small market value it often does not make sense from a resale point of view to rebuild and these houses are therefore often sold for little more than land value. At some level, this drives me crazy, since we are tearing down perfectly solid structures that 35 years ago was perfectly adequate for the people who built it, but today does not meet the “modern” standards.

The same thing happens in boats. You may find a boat that has a perfectly sound hull. Perhaps it needs sails, standing and running rigging, a bit of galley updating, some minor electronics, a bit or rewiring, new plumbing, upholstery, a little deck core work, an engine rebuild, or for the big spender, replacement. Pretty soon you can buy a much newer boat with all relatively new gear for less than you’d have in the old girl. Its not hard for an old boat to suddenly be worth more as salvage than as a boat. A couple years ago a couple friends of mine were given a Rainbow in reasonable shape. She just needed sails and they wanted a newer auxiliary, but even buying everything used the boat was worth a lot less than the cost of the “new” parts. When they couldn’t afford the slip fees, the Rainbow was disposed of. She now graces a landfill and the cast iron keel was sold for scrap for more than they could sell the whole boat for. 

Then there is the issue of maintainable vs. durable/low maintenance design concepts. Wooden boats for example represent the difference between a maintainable construction method versus a low maintenance/ durable method. A wooden boat can be rebuilt for a nearly infinite period of time until it becomes a sailing equivalent of ‘George Washington’s axe’ (as in “that’s George Washington’s axe. It’s had a few new handles and a few new heads but that is still George Washington’s axe”.) The main structure of a fiberglass hull is reasonably durable and low maintenance but once it has begun to lose strength, there is nothing that you can do. 

The best deals on older used boats are the ones that someone has lovingly retored, upgraded, and maintained. Over the years they have poured lots of money and lavished lots of time into maintaining the boat in reasonably up to date condition. No matter how much they have spent the boat will never be worth anything near what they have in it because there is a real ceiling to how much an older boat will ever be worth and they will often have several times that ceiling invested. 

And finally if you buy an old fiberglass boat, and restore it, paint the bilges white. It does nothing for the boat, but if you ever have to sell the boat, then someone may look in your bilge and say “Lets buy her because any man that would love a boat so much that he went through the trouble to paint the bilge white must have enjoyed this boat and taken great care of her no matter what her age.”

Good Luck,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hi Jeff, You give very helpful comments, I always enjoy your observations. When I sit comfortably here weighing up the boats i see on the net, I try to add up the hours that it will take to repalce this and that bit that might need work. Then I give up and start allocating weeks to various sections of repair. I am looking at a range of boats including Bristol 40''s, Cal 43''s. Bowman 46 and Columbia 50''s. You can see there is a theam to the design my goes to. I have only ever seen and inspected the Columbia, but will be coming to the East coast to look as several of the above. YOu pointers on bulkhead spaceing and supports, and thpe of glass used will be helpful. Finding the layup mixture ratio will be more difficult. I guess builders generally became beter in the 80''s? It''s strange to me that some of the older boats don''t appear to suffer with osmosis as much as some of the newer ones.
Doug


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Since I am much to POOR so a new boat I can only commit on what I have been hearing.. Many of the newer boat are adding epoxy paints to wetted surfaces rather than just gel-coat. This is making for alot drier glass than what could be expected if if not painted.. I for one love epoxy, I know is can cause a loss of preformance but that loss is so small compared to the gain of fiber glass protection.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

To some extent, osmotic blisters were a partial result of resin reformulation that resulted from the oil crisises of the 1970''s. The worst blister problems occurred during the period from the mid 1970''s until the mid-1980''s. There were still older and newer boats than those built during that period that had blister problems but boats from that mid 1970''s until the mid-1980''s era had the most prevalent and most destructive blister problems. 

When I look at your list, with the exception of the Bowman, these were moderately poorly built boats to begin with, and so if someone has not disassembled and rebuilt these boats before you it would take years and buckets of money to put one of these boats into to condition to go offshore. When you talk about rebuilding one of these old girls, you could easily dump as much into one as she cost to purchase, but perhaps only add as much as 20% to her resale value. And when you were done you would end up with a boat that had moderately poor sailing abilities and a very weak resale market value. These were mediocre boats in their day and their day was nearly 40 years ago when they were designed. 

The Bowman 46 is perhaps a bit of an exception. While still not a great sailing boat in any kind of heavy going, the build quality were generally a step above that of the others on your short list. Many if not most of the Bowmans had teak decks and proprietary hardware making them very difficult and expensive to restore. 

I guess if I were in your shoes with your post restoration budget, I would look for a Kelly-Peterson 44 or 46 (not a Formosa built copy) in good solid shape and go cruising. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

not to contradict Jeff, I respect his opinion and it''s far more knowledgable than mine, but...

I have a total of roughly $25k into my Tartan. and it''s damn near mint now. good luck finding a newer boat that size in that price range in such good condition as mine. also, there''s little doubt I can regain at least 75% of my invested money back should I decide to sell.

btw, have you seen the way homes are built these days? better off buying a nicely built home from the late 60''s than any new home today. I would NEVER buy a new home unless I built it myself or inspected it while it was being built myself. 

my suggestion, but a decent older boat that''s sound. but understand the labor involved in the rebuilding of the boat. any boat over 20 years will need a serious overhall. the rigging on a 20 year old boat will needed to be replaced just the same as a 31 year old boat. same thing with most of the systems.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Heruka,

Perhaps mine was too strong a blamket statement because at times I have bought boats that were essentially intact but needed a fairly comprehensive list of work and still come out Okay at resale (if I included nothing in the equation for my fairly extensive committment of time). 

I also agree with your statement that to a great extent, a 20 year old boat may need as much work as a 30 year old boat, except that, depending on the specific model, the hull of the 20 year old boat is likely to be better engineered and constructed, (i.e. have an internal framing system, resins and fabrics that were handled properly, better resin ratios etc.)and the systems are likely to be more up to date, (i.e. bigger battery boxes, tinned wire, breakers rather than fuses, regulation compliant main disconnects on the 110v system, low friction steering systems, ''odorsafe'' waste piping, modern diesel engine, proper propane system installation, modern winches, spars and stoppers, etc.) and better aesthetics such as intact interior finishes (with the exception of upholstery which is near the end of its lifespan). 

The other factor is the value of the finished boat. Again, dependent on model, the older boat''s price will always be limited by its obsolete naval architecture and its age. The newer boat will generally have a wider range of resale prices between an updated, mint condition model and one that is trashed. The cost of the restoration of a beater may be roughly the same (or slightly less) for the new vs older boat, but the higher range of value for the beater vs restored newer boat in restored condition may allow you to recoup the cost of restoration whereas it is generally nearly imposible to do that with an equal condition older beater. 

That said, you are right that there are cases when the older boat does make sense. Tartans are a good case in point since thier initial build quality tended to be quite good, and, from a design standpoint, most of their models were pretty advanced for their day. Refresh my memory, what model Tartan did you restore?

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## mgiguere (May 22, 2004)

Jeff:

Very interesting to read your comments. I have had a Chris Craft Apache 37 for 20 years and have enjoyed the boat thoroughly all those years. As you may know, it''s an S&S design with a fin keel and bulb (radical for 1967) with minimum wetted surface concept that still sails past many modern designs of comparable size. For 37 ft, however, and 10 ft of beam, the interior is not comparable in size to modern designs; however, it drives great. 

Structually, the boat seems strong and was quite well constructed. Do you have any experience with this boat and knowledge of what I should look for relative to manufactured topics, fiberglass, etc.

Thanks

Moe


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I know the Apache reasonably well. I''ve always liked these boats. Sparkman and Stevens was of course ahead of their time in many ways and were the leading edge designers of that era. Chris Crafts were generally well built but like any high production of that era tended to use a lot of accellerators and their gelcoats were not the best so that spider cracking was pretty common. Spider cracking typically indicates high flex areas and allows moisture to reach the laminate. 

Chris Craft used a lot of wood as structural elements and these can rot out or lose bonding with the hull. I can''t recall the specifics of the Apache interior but a lot of the Chris Chrafts of that era had a lot of formica over plywood and the formica can trap moisture and allow rot to occur undetected. Simple tapping out of the bulkheads, especially near the edges can provide early detection of problems. 

Also the ''scimitar'' style rudder on the early boats (I think later boats had a skeg hung rudder but I could be mistaken.) places a lot of strain on the rudder posts, which were a bit small (if I remember correctly) by modern standards. 

Anyway, these are very nice boats for their day. They are not all that well known and so do not seem to have the strong following that I would think that they deserve. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jeff,
I looked at the kelly -Peterson on the yachtworld site. She looks very sturdy but not eye catching in my openion. I know beauty is only skin deep. One of theother boats I like the look of is the Tartans. With the S&S design the at least have the more classic yacht look and presuambly well built. I have always liked the Valiant 40''s, I know they had a strange blister problem on the topsides. I am fishing for reccomendation on well built boats that either have overhangs or a canoe sterns. That is what my eye is calling for.
Doug


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I wondered about the life-span of fiberglass too, and based on what I discovered, I chose aluminum. Fiberglass it seems has a relatively short life expectancy.

Check this link out. http://dahlfin.com/tehani/why_aluminum.html

"According to one classification-society engineer, it''s likely that cored-composite yachts built with bottom-of-the-barrel raw materials like E-glass fabric and polyester resin will have water in the core within five years. Even more troublesome is secondary bonding: the attachment of bulkheads, stringers, floors and other structural members to the cured hull. Secondary-bonding failure is a major cause of composite boat owner''s headaches. Composite fiberglass is floating Russian roulette--do you feel lucky?"


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

With the right maintance Fiber-glass is a fine material to build boats out of. Just like aluminum or steel it need protection. I wonder how long your hull would lat in an unprotected state. A good epoxy barrier coating and glass is good for YEARS of service before it must be stripped and done again. How about aluminum? How about Steel? I believe you are misinformed about boat building and maintance.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

jbanta:

"I wonder how long your hull would lat in an unprotected state."

Well, according to all estimates, about 40 plus years.

It''s plain to see that you didn''t follow the link I provided in my previous post above. Read it and you will find that aluminum is a far better choice than fiberglass. The only real problem with aluminum is that it doesn''t lend itself to mass production.

jbanta:

"A good epoxy barrier coating and glass is good for YEARS of service before it must be stripped and done again. How about aluminum? How about Steel? I believe you are misinformed about boat building and maintance."

Aluminum does not require any barrier coating whatsoever, therefore it doesn''t have to be "stripped and done again". Aluminum doesn''t require any paint. Un-painted aluminum does form a dull gray oxide coating which I personally don''t like, however there are many aluminum vessels that last for 40 plus years without the benefit of paint or any other coatings.

I won''t address steel as that is not relevent to the discussion of aluminum.

As far as fiberglass vs. aluminum I''m afraid it is you that is "misinformed about boat building and maintance."


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jeff,
I just think it would be better to ammend your statement and give people a better understanding of what they''re getting into. obvious make and type of boat matters a great deal, and restoring a ''classic plastic'' boat is no picnic in the park, but it sure still beats watering a garden.

while basically correct on the choosing a boat already restored or ''outfitted'' as opposed to one that needs everything, the job itself can be rewarding and pleasurable for the right individual. 

I just think you''re a bit harsh in your statements against restoring an older boat. working on a boat isn''t really work, it''s almost Zen-ish in it''s ability to become a way of life. it has to be. I didn''t put all that money, and more importantly time, into a god-damn hobby. 

we own a Tartan 30 Comp. model. and I love this boat. 

we''re aso in the middle of a cruise, as we just came back from Georgian Bay and the North Channel and are waiting for the ''canes to pass before heading down the East coast and into the Carib.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

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...."


----------



## half sunk (Sep 19, 2017)

Purchaseing a boat 
Well reading some very good reviews on fibre glass I'm much happier I can make a good Decision but I need a little more help. I'm think of purchaseing esentaly the hull of the boat.
What things should I be aware of, I'm fairly green but have seen a few boats or would you recomend I get a proofesional inspection. The boat is a pivar loadstar.


----------



## half sunk (Sep 19, 2017)

sorry 1979 Trimaran


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

My boat was built long before many of the sail net forum members were born, and I'm fairly confident that it will outlive pretty much everyone on this forum, including Jeff, who is a relatively, young guy. 

I talked with an engineering friend in New York last week and posed this question to him. His name was Geoff. "What is the lifespan of a fiberglass boat constructed in 1974?" Geoff, who lives on Long Island and is a chemical engineer, said "Keep in mind that ordinary monofilament fishing line will survive in the water for up to 600 years or more. Fiberglass boat hulls, when properly mixed and heavily constructed, will likely outlive the monofilament by 50 percent or more - it's that tough!" Geoff went on to explain that there has been a lot of research done on both fiberglass and monofilament line, mainly because we have so much of both in our environment and it never seems to go away. One of the things he referenced was the plastic bags made from corn starch, mainly because they are biodegradable. Those bags take 10 to 15 years to biodegrade when exposed to sunlight, rain, snow and air. When buried in a landfill, ordinary newspaper from the 1800s is just as good as it was when the news was first printed upon it. "I believe if someone takes reasonably good care of their boat hull, it will outlive their great grandchildren." 

There are a few other posts on this subject on the site, which you may find with the search engine. If I recall, there were some great links to engineering sites that tested fiberglass for longevity.

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## half sunk (Sep 19, 2017)

Thank you but he has taken it off the market, your help will be for ever appreciated.


----------

