# Why are Cement Hulls, Bad ? or Are they ?



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

I looked at a Concrete Hull boat and heard some Bad attitudes here about them.. Whats wrong with them ? 

Thanks.. 
Paul...


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Many ferro boats were built in backyards to less-than-professional standards; thereby earning the type a reputation for poor quality, deserved or not. That being said, a well-built ferro boat is quite seaworthy, in theory.


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*Tech*

i believe that partly due to small air bubbles forming on the ferro ( metal mesh ) inside the cement . Weakening the hull with rust on the parts that are supossed to be streathening it. In the newer const. I believe tech. has evolved to where that has been fixed. 
You would have to carry a bag of cement with you ........ hard to do in a wet inviroment ?


----------



## danjarch (Jun 18, 2007)

Cement boats were the stitch and glue of the seventies. As Fstbttms pointed out they were often built by guys in their back yards, and more then a few tried their hands at design as well. Either from scratch or by modifying an existing design. This compounded poor construction with equally poor designs. 

Add in that since no big production company ever made a big production run of them, they are few and far between and generally people are nervous about what they aren't used to. This also means fewer people who know how to work on them or repair them. Also insurance companies are skittish about covering them so it's both harder and more expensive to get either loans or insurance on them. And last but not least because all the aforementioned problems, some marinas don't allow them either.

The irony in all of that, is that if your looking for a cheap cruising boat and aren't worried about having more then liability insurance then you can find some really good deals on ferro boats. But then you add the problem of finding a good surveyor that knows about ferro boats to make sure your getting a good deal.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

Superpickle said:


> I looked at a Concrete Hull boat and heard some Bad attitudes here about them.. Whats wrong with them ?
> 
> Thanks..
> Paul...


This is the best source of info The World of Ferroboats

Look at the for sale list to see some stunning looking ferroboats.

But you can also find some real sheds where the builder runs out of money and finished the boat with any old wood, slaps on some house paint and then does no maintenance.

Where ever the cruisers gather there are usually one or two big ferro boats. I say big because ferro seems to work best in the 45 to 70 foot range, smaller ones are too heavy.


----------



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

I was Almost put completly off this boat by some Negetive remarks from some here.
I have done a bit of Research and find that this may be a VERY good boat.

1981 Windboats Endurance Ketch Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Those that are Obviously Not in the know, asking "Where will you Scuttel it" and " A Portable Reef" made me think it was very bad, Although I was also told Insurence may be hard to get and Expensive.. I will check into that.

But, it seems the "Windboats Marine " is a Good company and still in the works.

Thanks for the Link to some very good info..

Paul...


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

I've seen a Ferro boat that was undistinguishable from fiberglass in terms of finish - it is possible - I've seen that one in 30 years..

This particular model appears (in pictures) to be spacious and quite nicely finished, at least inside.

But, and there's still a but; a couple of points:

- Its a large boat (yes, for a small price) Besides generally getting what you pay for, which in a 40' boat isn't likely to be much, if this boat attracts you due to its price you may well be hard pressed to keep up with the required maintenance budget. Moorage, storage, size, length and strength of gear are tied to boat size and displacement, not purchase price. If you can just afford to buy it, can you afford to keep it?

Second, this one may be a comfy liveaboard, but the free standing (read heavy) junk rig does not lend itself to recreational sailing, or sailing upwind with any efficiency at all.

Finally, at 26 TONS this is one heavy 40 footer. Even the 80 hp engine seems a bit marginal to me, and I'd expect you'd be using it a lot.

Note, btw, that none of these issues has anything to do the fact that it's built of ferrocement. Whether it's one of the 'good ones' is still to be determined. And yes, insurance may well be a factor.


----------



## solar (Mar 11, 2000)

*Hip shooting*

No comment


----------



## danjarch (Jun 18, 2007)

First, I'll second what faster said. If this is a good deal for you because it lets you buy more boat then you can afford then it's going to bite you in the rump since it will still need all the usual stuff that goes along with owning a 40 foot boat. 

Second, one more thing to consider is that the reason the price is so good is that ferro boats take a long time to sale and even then sale for a lot less then fiberglass or wooden boats of the same size. So just be aware that once you go to sale the boat, your going to have to keep paying slip fees until it sales and it will sale for less then comparable boats built in fiberglass or wood.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

I dunno. The rusted rebar-in-cement seems to hold up pretty well in the bridges and supports that live in salt-water environs, literally, for decades, and they don't get painted every couple years. While the dynamics may differ, the columns handle tons of weight, varying tidal forces, storms.... I mean, they can last over 100 years, and in a day when some are claiming 40 year-old fiberglass is too old, I'm not so sure ferro-cement is so bad. Heavy, but hey, hoist up the big stuff and enjoy the stability.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

When I think of ferrocement built boats I think of your avatar.......right or wrong that's the general perception I have.....there are always exceptions to the rule....I would not however take the risk with my luck.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

As fstbttms said, many ferro boats were built in backyards to very tight budgets so the re-bar frame would be constructed in stages, left to rust, bound with wire, left to rust, plastered with random-composition mixes by unprofessional people to random thicknesses, etc, etc.

There were a lot of ferro boats built in factories by professionals using exacting standards, state-of-the-art anti corrosion processes and the result was a number of excellent boats.

How do you tell the difference? I don't know except to say that badly built ferro boats are mostly obvious. If you see a really good-looking one, that's where the problem starts. You will have to do a decent amount of research to convince yourself that it isn't just a stroke of luck that a bad boat looks great.

It's a risky business but that is why they are sooooo "affordable". they're really hard to sell.


----------



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

danjarch said:


> First, I'll second what faster said. If this is a good deal for you because it lets you buy more boat then you can afford then it's going to bite you in the rump since it will still need all the usual stuff that goes along with owning a 40 foot boat.
> 
> Second, one more thing to consider is that the reason the price is so good is that ferro boats take a long time to sale and even then sale for a lot less then fiberglass or wooden boats of the same size. So just be aware that once you go to sale the boat, your going to have to keep paying slip fees until it sales and it will sale for less then comparable boats built in fiberglass or wood.


Thank you, thats the kind of advice i wanted in my other post.. INFO, not Geers and snotty remarks..
And, I think you are getting your Sail, Sales, and Sell , mixed up and im having trouble deciphering  
But, your right, i was seeing a Lot of boat for less.  
Still, I DO love the inside.. Drat..


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

26 tons! That boat will never sail, but motor most of the time. It also means that longer passages will be slow, maybe even so slow that it is unsafe - say you need to get through a canal, pass or similar with a deadline (tide turning, or whatever).
So you really need to consider if you want a sailboat, or a sail-assisted motorboat. (and as Faster touched on, it's actually underpowered engine-wise also).
EDIT: The HR40, which is a heavy 40 footer, weighs 10 tons


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

I agree with Faster and Joms. 26 tons on a 40 water line. Thats a barge not a boat.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

It is not so much that Ferrocement is bad per se, but that it has its limitations. Properly done and used on big enough boats where it actually makes sense then it is a reasonable method to build a boat but never an ideal method to build a boat. 

The boat in your link, has much bigger issues than the fact that it is ferrocememt. It is a terrible design in terms of its likely sailing ability and general layout. No matter what material this boat was constructed in, it would be a really poor choice for anything other than a live aboard that you did not plan to sail. 

But more to the point, it will cost you as much to buy and upgrade and maintain that boat as to buy and as it would to buy, upgrade and a maintain a reasonably high quality fiberglass boat with a more universally appealing design. In most marketplaces ferrocement boats are simply worth a lot less to a fiberglass or aluminum boat of an equal design and build quality, so on a boat to boat comparason so it will be much harder to get the money back that you invested in the purchase and restoration. It is for that reason, if none other that people are suggesting that you walk away from that particular ferrocement boat. 

I did want to touch on Seabreeze 97's point about the durability of concrete buildings and transportation structures. Unlike boats, within reason weight is not as critical factor so in buildings, we can tollerate much thicker concrete as steel protection. Typically in a concrete building any element that in contact with the ground is required by code to have a minumum of 3 inches of concrete over the top of any structural steel reinforcing, and even concrete that is in the air, requires a minimum of 1 1/2" of concreteprotection over the steel. That 3" or even 1 1/2" is a much thicker cover than the typical 1/4" to 3/8" concrete cover over the steel in a ferrocement boat, and that 1/4" to 3/8" cover is for a material that is nearly constantly exposed to high moisture. 

But also, because concrete building designs are less concerned about weight than ferrocement boat designs, the margins of safety, on buildings can be and typically are many times higher than those used in designing Ferrocement. 

Anyway the following is an article on Ferrocement that I wrote for another venue but which summarizes Ferrocement, albiet a viewpoint that represents a North American point of view. (You might also want to look at the rather long and very detailed discussion on ferrocement boats over at the Cruisers Forum.com. Ferro Cement Hulls? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums Its a good thread with people weighing in on both sides, including a number of people who actually own ferrocement boats. and it includes much of the engineering data that backs up the claim that on a pound for pound basis, ferrocement is the weakest boat buillding material.)
<O
<O</O

To begin with, simply taken on a pound for pound basis, ferro cement is the weakest of all of the commonly used boat building materials. Ferro-cement operates by the same principle as fiberglass, in other words, a high tensile strength reinforcing held in shape by a high compressive strength, low tensile strength cement. The cement in ferro-cement ideally is a very high strength Portland cement with a very fine sand aggregate. (The cement in fiberglass is polyester, vinylester or epoxy resin.) The tensile reinforcing material in ferrocement is steel (sometimes with glass fiber added). (In fiberglass it is glass fibers or other hig tensile strength materials in a variety of forms, kevlar, carbon and all kinds of new variations on these materials). 

Ferro-cement's weight comes from a number of sources. First of all, no matter how small the boat, there is a practical limit to how thin ferro-cement can be. Ferro-cement needs to have a minimum thickness in order to have sufficient depth of cement material over the steel to protect the reinforcement from moisture (the typically quoted thickness of cement protecting the steel varies between ¼" and 3/8", depending on the source and the cement being advocated). Because of this boats below 40 to 45 feet are generally considered too small to use ferro-cement efficiently. (i.e. their hulls, and deck structures weigh a lot more than they an equal strength structure would in some other material.) 

<OThe implication of the weight issue is not readily obvious. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Weight in and of itself does nothing good for a boat. It does not make it stronger, or more comfortable or more stabile. Weight does increase the stress on the various parts of a boat. It increases the size of a sail plan required to achieve a particular speed. It increases drag and typically means that for a given draft a boat will have a less efficient keel (i.e trading off greater drag for the same amount of leeway.) <O</O
<O</O

In order to carry more sail area the heavier boat with equal or less ballast stability needs greater form stability, which comes at the price or a choppier motion and greater drag, or greater ballast or deeper ballast which adds more weight and drag and perhaps depth. <O</O
<O</O

Similar to steel, to keep the weight down, many ferro-cement cement boats have reduced ballast ratios when compared to other construction techniques. This means that they need more sail area because of their weight but they can't carry more sail area because of reduced ballast ratios, at least not without using lower aspect rigs which are by their very nature much less efficient on almost all points of sail. <O</O
<O</O

This is further complicated by the fact a higher proportion of the weight in a ferro-cement boat is carried in the in the topsides (and sometimes decks). This means a high center of gravity which has a variety of implications; reduced stability, wider roll angles, smaller angles of ultimate stability, and more prone to excitation rolling (which may be slightly offset by the greater inertial moments due to weight).<O</O
<O</O
This added hull and deck weight, larger sail plan, and perhaps greater ballast requirement to carry the sail plan make these boats a less than ideal choice for distance voyaging for a variety of reasons. Any given design can only safely carry so much weight before it begins losing safety, stability and sailing ability. If excess weight weight is required for the hull, deck, rig and ballasting, there is less weight available to carry food, stores and gear. For a given payload, a bigger more capacious boat is required. And since displacement is a major component in determinging the amount of anticipated maintenance costs (affecting sails and deck hardware size, ground tackle and dock lines, engine size and fuel consumption, down to even simple things like the amount of bottom paint required), these boats that can become expensive to maintain as well. <O</O
<O</O

Which then brings us to maintenance costs. In a study performed some years back looking at the life costs of various materials, ferro-cement-cement came out as the second highest maintenance cost material (if I remember worst to best was steel, ferro-cement, conventional wood, aluminum, fiberglass, cold molded wood) Of course as with any generalized study there will be case by case exceptions and given the comparatively small sampling of non-FRP boats the results could easily been skewed by a few bad apples. <O</O
<O</O

Other problems with ferro-cement are the difficulty of connecting things to it, and prevention of rot in wood in contact with ferro-cement. The difficulty in bolting to ferro-cement is that ferro-cement hates localized loadings. It's hard to glue things to ferro-cement; secondary bonds are greatly greatly weaker than primary bonds. <O</O
<O</O

Then there is the market value issue. ferro-cement does have a reputation in the States that does not match the comparatively high regard that it is held in other countries. Some of this is just plain unfair prejudice but some of this comes from real shortcomings in the materials as noted above. A well-built ferro-cement boat can be a reasonably good cruising boat. But the image of the crudely finished 'hippie' built cement and rust buckets still clouds the perception of ferro-cement for many North Americans. 

The other problem is telling whether the boat that you are looking at is a good boat. It is very hard with non- destructive survey techniques to tell whether the original work was done well and is in good condition. While sounding will reveal any major separations in the cement to reinforcing bond, it does little to determine the affects of fatigue, poor curing practices or cold joints. With Ferro-cement it is particularly important to maintain the ferro-cement parts in good condtion. That can be very significant. People who buy boats because they are priced well below the market, often are overly frugal or just plain do not have the money that it takes to properly maintain a boat. An otherwise good Ferro-cement boat left to poor maintenance and miss-handling can quickly become a poster child for why North American's don't trust Ferro-cement.<O</O
<O</O

To me the real cost of owning a boat is the difference between what you paid for the boat, the cost of upgrades and maintenance and the price that you can get when you sell the boat. The problem with a lot of low value boats is that the sales price is always limited no matter how much you put into the boat. This works against ferro cement boats big time.<O</O
<O</O

I guess my conclusion is if you are strictly looking for a low initial up front cost boat and don't mind putting some sweat equity in, and you can look past the sailing shortcomings, and you actually find one that was well built and well maintained, a ferro-cement boat might work out fine for you. For most of us, they do not. <O</O
<O</O

Respectfully <O</O
<O</O

Jeff <O</O


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

That boat is at the bottom end of what I reckon is the ferro comfort zone re length. It would make a good liveaboard and would motor around OK.

But I would have my doubts about its sailing ability with that rig.

Good buy if you are looking for a floating home. Bad buy is you want to sail ANYWHERE,


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

So Pickle, got to ask: Have you ever been sailing on anything larger than a dinghy before? And, are you looking for advice or just validation? Seems to me that you ask for the collective wisdom of the board and then get a little defensive when it doesn't go your way. I'm surprised that the boat in Florida </ST1that you are so enamored with was built by a professional builder at all. The topsides photos have the look of a backyard build. I'd hate to see what it is below the waterline. The interior looks cute in a pirate ship sort of way. Is that what you are going for? A pirate ship? Sorry for being blunt but my narrow mindedness was formed over many years and many, many miles of sailing experience. Don't take my word for it, call a couple of insurance companies and see if you can even get insurance. Seriously doubt if you could get a liability policy for it either.

But if it is validation you-re going for: Do it, do it now! Just because us guys own sail boats made out of dead dinosaurs doesn't mean you have to! We probably overspent for our Tupperware boats! Don't fall into our trap! We make boating expensive - it doesn't have to be that way! In fact, done properly, sailing is cheaper than living under a bridge! Besides, being constrained by our experience, we have become narrow minded and need you to come over to our side and drink the kool-aide too. Be an outlaw! Live the dream - not somebody else's reality!


----------



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

GeorgeB said:


> So Pickle, got to ask: Have you ever been sailing on anything larger than a dinghy before? And, are you looking for advice or just validation? Seems to me that you ask for the collective wisdom of the board and then get a little defensive when it doesn't go your way. I'm surprised that the boat in Florida </ST1that you are so enamored with was built by a professional builder at all. The topsides photos have the look of a backyard build. I'd hate to see what it is below the waterline. The interior looks cute in a pirate ship sort of way. Is that what you are going for? A pirate ship? Sorry for being blunt but my narrow mindedness was formed over many years and many, many miles of sailing experience. Don't take my word for it, call a couple of insurance companies and see if you can even get insurance. Seriously doubt if you could get a liability policy for it either.
> 
> But if it is validation you-re going for: Do it, do it now! Just because us guys own sail boats made out of dead dinosaurs doesn't mean you have to! We probably overspent for our Tupperware boats! Don't fall into our trap! We make boating expensive - it doesn't have to be that way! In fact, done properly, sailing is cheaper than living under a bridge! Besides, being constrained by our experience, we have become narrow minded and need you to come over to our side and drink the kool-aide too. Be an outlaw! Live the dream - not somebody else's reality!


No no no. I do Appologise, if i came across in a Flippent manor.. 
Sailing in an Inner tube doun the Clackamas river in oregon,, or mabee that was Coasting 

I was wanting some advice, not just Attitudes.. Sorry if i was Un appriciative ( i know, Spelling )
Do like the Piraty look though 

I havnt a clue what to look for or whats good and bad.. Just want to learn to sail and move to Samoa. mabee


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Pickle,
The comment about the 42,000 pound displacement got me to thinking. This thing is north of a thousand pounds per foot LOA. Your typical 40+ footer FRP cruiseris going to weigh in somewhere under 600# per foot. I thought, "hey, this would be fun to run the numbers through my ratio calculator". I googled "Windboats" and got a hit from a builder in <ST1England</ST1. They currently build for Oyster. Their history made no mention of Ferro-Cement, but they used to build "custom yacht builds". I had better luck with "Endurance". Seems that the designer was one Peter Ibold, a civil engineering professor and self taught yacht designer. He won a "best amateur yacht designer contest" in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







Norwich </st1:City><st1:country-region w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1England </ST1</st1:country-region>with his Endurance 35. He was pretty prolific, ultimately designing 60 different boats that were built by over twenty different boatyards. However, He never gave up his day job in civil so i don't think he was that successful. I eventually found a 1978 brochure from Windboats for the Endurance 40+ (a.k.a. "41"?). At the time they billed themselves as a leading builder in Ferro (the picture depicted hull #2). The 40+/41 was built by various builders in wood, steel, and fiberglass in addition to the cement. The Endurance boats ceased being built in the early '90's

Herein lies one of the big problems in Ferro, there are no molds or single builder so there is no consistency. Each boat is a one off construction. The Ft Meyers boat for example, is five tons heavier than the original design weight. You can only imagine the differences in construction quality. This boat in particular is a little weird, having a junk rig, unstayed masts and an 800 sq ft sail plan. This sailplan is not much bigger than my 34 footer with a large genoa up. To manage two halyards and two sheets, you get exactly two winches. But hey, one of them is self tailing! Do you need any additional information as to why this isn't a good deal?

<OThe used boat marketplace is pretty efficient. Both buyers and sellers tend to be equally knowledgeable and have access to the same information. And the selling prices reflect the boat's true, relative value. You are not very likely to find a "diamond in the rough", the market is way too efficient. If you buy a boat on the bottom part of the scale, you will often spend more out of pocket money to bring that boat up to "mid range" standards than what you would have spent if you bought the mid range boat in the first place. Boats are expensive, cruising boats more so. Think house expensive, not Kia Sportage expensive. Don't be seduced by your dreams and pictures of pirate ships. Get knowledgeable, or better yet, find someone who is. There are consultants that can help you in this arena. Cruising Concepts in <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1Alameda</ST1</st1:City> is one, for example.<O</O


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

More to the point, when you describe Displacement in tons the convention is to use 'long tons' which means that the boat in question weights and absurdly heavy 58,800 lbs. Letting Karl crunch the numbers ( Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2000+ boats ) that translates to a freakishly high L/D over 800.

When you think about a heavy cruiser, say an Atkin's Ingrid or CT 41, they have L/D's in the range of 325 to 350, and frankly these are both seriously weight challenged designs.

800 square feet on a boat that heavy translates to an SA/D in the range of 8.46. I have seen powerboats with greater SA/D's than that, but again compared to the imfamously under canvased Ingrid with an SA/D of 16.5, or so, you quickly can see why people are steering you away from this particular Endurance 41 if you really plan to sail.

Jeff


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Pickel:
I have seen one or two stunning examples of ferro built boats..they do exist.




Here is the kicker for me...I work hard for my money and have to plan long for my dreams...took me 30 years to get my 40 footer...so I dont have too many chances to screw up..I'm unwilling to take the calculated risk of plunking down 100K for one of those stunning examples when there are so may relatively less riskier options out there..30K may not seem like a lot to you right now but envision putting another 30 into her and then having it all go south on you.

The purchase price of a boat is just the admittance fee to the dance...you still have to spend money on the girl...court one with something going for her with pleasing and desirable charitor traits others desire as well... or you could find yourself in a disillusioned relationship contemplating an expensive divorce quicker then you think.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Jeff_H said:


> When you think about a heavy cruiser, say an Atkin's Ingrid or CT 41, they have L/D's in the range of 325 to 350, and frankly these are both seriously weight challenged designs.


Jeff are you quoting L/D for the ferro-hulled Atkin's Ingrid or the wood hulled originals?


----------



## Capt.Fred (Oct 17, 2004)

If you are interested in ferro boats and are lucky, you might find the book "HARMONY" by Patrick Cotton. Patrick designed the most beautiful and seaworthy ferro boats imagineable. He assisted in building a fleet of them at Half Moon Bay south of San Francisco in the 70's. (Patrick and his fleet sailed almost the entire South Pacific.) I was fortunate to be moored there for a time. Fishermen would leave a fresh salmon on my deck SEVERAL times a week. At 75 yrs I tend to digress. I have so many memories. I am presently preparing my tiny Rob Roy 23 for extended up Central American rivers and each day, I have noticed against my will, I get a little less done. Anyway, I am not a fan of ferro cement boats for a vast number of reasons. I understand that in the 70's at least 10,000 were under construction along the entire West Coast. Most were embarrasements and some were beautys.
BTW, "HARMONY" is full of photos showing the entire construction phases of ferro boats, pictures under sail, photos of his remote anchorages in the Pacific and route maps. very very interesting.


----------



## Superpickle (Oct 17, 2009)

Thank you Very much Capt. Fred  
I will have to look for your Posts from now on.. ;-)

I will check it out, But, I think i am in the mind now of NOT wanting a boat so heavy..

To all the rest, THANKS.
So, I think we can let this one Die now ...LOL..LOL


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Keel Hauling: I grabbed the displacement shown on Karl's Calculator for the Ingrid and did not research where that number came from. It is my understanding that the Fiberglass versions typically were about the same displacement as the wooden boats, but had less ballast to make up for the heavier hull weights. 

Jeff


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

The Atkins Ingrid ferro hull is spec'd at 16 tons; the fiberglass hull is 11.6 tons. The only Ingrid I had ever seen was a ferro hull; but looking on yachtworld it was probably either a one-off or the production of it in a ferro hull was limited to just a few.

Here's the ferro boat I was thinking of:

1971 Atkins Ingrid Cutter Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

With 10,000 lbs extra weight in the hull; I'd say the ferro version is probably better suited to motor sailing or as a permanantly moored live-aboard. I had talked with the owner of that ferro hull boat when I was OTH at Napa and he said he was going to sail it to Eureka, CA from SF; but seeing that it is listed on Yachtworld again I suspect that he either lost faith in the boat or it could not sail upwind very well.


----------



## Capt.Fred (Oct 17, 2004)

KeelHaulin said:


> The Atkins Ingrid ferro hull is spec'd at 16 tons; the fiberglass hull is 11.6 tons. The only Ingrid I had ever seen was a ferro hull; but looking on yachtworld it was probably either a one-off or the production of it in a ferro hull was limited to just a few.
> 
> KeelHaulin, Hi, PLease understand that my sensibilities were slightly disarranged, when you called that cement floating house trailor an Atkins Ingrid.
> I might be somewhat mistaken, but I believe the Atkins, Ingrid, Alajuela and Bluewater were all take offs from the very beautiful. graceful and extremely seaworthy Colin Archer. I respectfully urge you to look at some photos of the original Colin Archer or Atkins etc. Please note that in my 23 ton 50' Double ender "Daedalus" I slugged North Along the West Coast of California motor sailing in any season, always freezing my buns. Until I ran a 1" brass pipe from the engine cooling system to the helm area. That helped keep me warmer. I repeatedly noticed many boats especially fin keel (but not only) hobby horsing like mad on their frenzy dash North and my boat slugged thru the chop without as much movement. My conclusion was that those boats needed to distribute their supplies, gear and anything heavy more fore and aft as much as possible.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Capt.Fred said:


> KeelHaulin, Hi, PLease understand that my sensibilities were slightly disarranged, when you called that cement floating house trailor an Atkins Ingrid.
> I might be somewhat mistaken, but I believe the Atkins, Ingrid, Alajuela and Bluewater were all take offs from the very beautiful. graceful and extremely seaworthy Colin Archer. I respectfully urge you to look at some photos of the original Colin Archer or Atkins etc.


Yes, you are mistaken; I was referring to a specific "Atkins Ingrid" that was constructed of ferro-cement; not the hull that Superpickle was asking about in this thread.

Look at this link:

1971 Atkins Ingrid Cutter Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

You see, this boat was constructed of ferro-cement; and was formed to the hull design of the Atkins Ingrid. If you look closely you can see that it sits about 4" lower in the water than a fiberglass hull due to the extra weight. My question about the sailing properties of the Ingrid were to determine if what Jeff H was saying about their performance was in regard to the ferro hull like the above listing or for the original wood or fiberglass construction hulls.

Unfortunately; a boat thought to be the first Ingrid hull was lost a few weeks ago here in SF:

Latitude 38 - The West's Premier Sailing & Marine Magazine


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Perhaps I can shed some light on the Ingrid discussion by providing a little background. Atkins was a master of taking basic work boat designs and adopting them to be suitable cruising boats. Most workboats are by necessity a balance of maximum burdensomeness for a given length and performance, meaning that by their very nature work boats, with a few notable exceptions, had to carry a lot of cargo, as well as support their crews and make reasonable passage times, with minimal crew and a reasonable degree of safety. 

Because commercial working water craft had the need to carry so much weight, they generally made poor choices as pleasure craft where there was no need to carry so much weight. When you look at the work of Colin Archer, his working water craft were literally approaching twice the weight of his pleasure craft of the same length. 

To one degree or another Atkin's Ingrid was evolved from Colin Archer's pleasure craft, but was so much more refined that it would be hard to say that they were really adaptations of the Colin Archer rescue boats for which Colin Archer was best known. Atkin's also designed a 32 footer called the Eric that was more closely related to Colin Archers designs. The Eric formed the basis for the Westsail 32. 

In any event, the Ingrid design was eventually adapted to fiberglass and sold as a an Alejuela and Pacific Seacraft 38 (not to be mistaken for the later Pacific Seacraft 37) as well as under a variety of other names built by a number of builders world wide. 

The original Ingrid was just under 38 feet in length. A number of designers and boat builders produced longer adapations of the design as well, often keeping the name Ingrid attached to the design, even those the quality of these adapations varied very widely from the original. 

The design concept was also adapted to Ferrocement by a number of boat builders, both professional and amatuer. I can't speak to the particular version that you are looking at, but there was one very high quality 41 foot production version of the Ingrid built in Maryland in the early 1980's. One of those had been on the hard, in near derilict condition, for decades just up the street from my house and the hull is in near perfect shape. I thought she was a glass boat until I met her owner. 

He was the original owner of the company and he contends that the hulls of his Ferrocement versions were lighter and stronger than the glass boats. He described the process of building these boats to me one day and it really was impressive using a powered pump to rapidly place the high strength cement under pressure and using a more complex mold than was typical with most ferrocement processes. I don't recall the details, but for its size the boat seemed very robust and taken at his word, not as heavy as the glass boats. 

Now then, when it comes to the boat in the YachtWorld listing, the ad does not say whether the boat was professionally built, whether the LOA includes the bowsprit or is the more typical length on deck and it is hard to say where the numbers come from and whether they are accurate or not. 

It is not unusual for displacements to be inaccurately quoted, but then again you never know. At least in the pictures that boat looks moderatly fair but not as nicely modeled as the true Ingrids or the one up the street from my home. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> ...Atkin's also designed a 32 footer called the Eric that was more closely related to Colin Archers designs. The Eric formed the basis for the Westsail 32.
> 
> In any event, the Ingrid design was eventually adapted to fiberglass and sold as a an Alejuela and Pacific Seacraft 38 (not to be mistaken for the later Pacific Seacraft 37) as well as under a variety of other names built by a number of builders world wide. ....


Jeff, all very interesting.

Two points of elaboration: I have often heard it stated that Crealock adapted the Westsail 32 from Atkin's _Eric_. Atkin actually had two similar designs, _Eric_ and _Thistle_, that shared a common hull. But whereas _Eric_ was a gaff-rigged ketch, _Thistle_ used the same rig (cutter with sprit and boomkin) that was carried over to the Westsail 32. In that sense, I think it's more accurate to say that the Westsail 32 derived from _Thistle_. I'm sure there'll be no end to debate on that one, though.

Also, I'm unaware of a Pacific Seacraft 38 model that was ever built (Bob Perry was designing a 38 footer for PSC/California a few years back, but it was only on paper). There were, however, two west coast companies selling the Ingrids: Alajeula Yachts (Alajeula 38, sold as a cutter) and Blue Water Boats (Ingrid 38, sold as a ketch, often in kit form). Could one of these be the "PSC 38" you were remembering?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

John,

Good points. I have always understood that the design was called the "Eric", but that the adaptation of that design to a cutter rig was done for a boat called "Thistle". I could have that wrong. 

It was my understanding that when Pacific Seacraft went into business it briefly built the Alejuela as a Pacific Seacraft 38 before reselling the tooling when the tooled up the PS 37. Again I may be remembering this incorrectly.

Jeff


----------



## DCClancy (Oct 19, 2009)

*From Jay Benford web page*

What Is Ferro-Cement? For those who aren't familiar with Ferro Cement, it's a method of building in which the shell of the boat is built of a steel wire mesh and rod matrix, which is then permeated with a concrete mixture. The mortar is cured carefully to a minimum of 8,000 psi (to meet our specs). The resulting structure is a strong and rugged shell that will not burn, is not affected by ice, is resistant to chemical attack, and has a mortar that actually strengthens with age.

How Did It Get Started? The first ferro-cement boats were built in the middle 1800's and are still in a museum in Europe. World War I saw the building of large concrete ships, some of which I've seen still afloat as breakwaters. During World War II, some experimental vessels were built which proved the material on some good-sized working vessels and later on some yachts.

The building craze that began in the late 1960's was fueled mainly by promoters who spent more effort in selling franchises for their books and plans than in improving the technology. The few builders who built good quality boats often got overlooked with the vast numbers of amateur built boats sprouting up everywhere.

I had learned how to do it the right way while working for a licensee of the English Windboats Ltd. firm, who were the only ones building Lloyd's approved structures.

Following this experience, I did some additional work in the testing labs to develop a range of shell layups that would span the range of 12' to 90' designs we worked on. This knowledge gave us the technology to design much lighter and stronger boats than were commonly being done. It was an uphill battle to get people to recognize that chicken wire was not the best choice, though in the end almost everyone ended up using the same square welded mesh that we did.

PRACTICAL FERRO-CEMENT BOATBUILDING

After a bit of this development and designing work, I teamed up and co-authored a book on the subject, titled Practical Ferro-Cement Boatbuilding. It was quite well received and widely distributed, going through 11,000 copies in four separate editions. This book covered the ideas, tools and techniques that we had developed to build lighter and better ferro-cement boats.

This book has been out-of-print for a long time now, though I still am able to occasionally pick up a copy in a used bookstore. Thus, we have a very few copies that we keep for those who are determined, usually against our advice, to build in ferro-cement.

What Ever Happened To Ferro-Cement? Too many people who read Samson's ads saying they could build the hull and deck of a 45-footer for $2,000 didn't realize that was only the beginning of the money they would have to spend to make a complete boat. It usually took ten times that much to fully outfit the boat in those days.

Also, their publications stressed how easy and quick they were to build. Too many of the resulting boats looked like the builders took that advice literally. They were - and still are, for how do you dispose of cement? - an eyesore, enjoying very low, if any, resale value. Their being readily identifiable as ferro-cement has given a bad name to all ferro-cement boats. The good ones were always mistaken for wooden or custom fiberglass boats, and thus no credit was given to the medium of ferro-cement.

So, although it is still a viable way to build a tough and long-lasting boat, I have not been able to give it an unqualified recommendation for some time. It is very frustrating for me and much more so for the owners of the good boats to find that they can't get the same return on their invested time and money than if they had built in wood or fiberglass.

Do You Still Sell Plans For Ferro-Cement? Yes, but only when we've given the caution above to the prospective buyers. Most of our few remaining ferro-cement sales are now going overseas where there is still a bit more viable market for the finished boats.

What About Buying A Used Ferro-Cement Boat? With the negative attitudes prevailing about ferro-cement boats, their prices are usually quite low. The only problem in buying one is the difficulty in doing a proper survey. This is a two-part problem with the lack of many experienced surveyors and the difficulty of knowing what few clues to look for in the survey. If the seller has photos documenting the whole of the construction of the armature and the plastering, this is a big help. It they did mortar sampling and testing to assure the correct mortar strength this helps to prove the quality of the initial construction.

From there, it is a matter of looking at the level of finish and fairness of the structure, the quality of the detailing of how things are attached to the structure, and if there are any visible clues to maintenance work that has been overlooked. If you can find a good one that can be used as is and without any major investment in finishing it or adding equipment, then you might have some hope of reselling it later without loosing all your investment.


----------



## SchoonerSailor (Nov 3, 2009)

*Samson boats*

I must say, I am exhausted from reading all the posts on ferros !
I have been looking at a old Samson Schooner to buy.
Now first, I will say I am a Lic. Capt. and professional yacht painter and have owned mostly wood boats. I currently own, Captain and live on a 93 foot, 220 ton tugboat. So, I know large boats all too well.
This schooner is 53 on deck which is a good size for Ferro.
I have read all the books I can get my hands on and all the posts.
I am still totally split in my thoughts here.
Since I own large wood vessels, I obviously dont care about dumping money in I will never get back. So resale doesnt matter to me.
Not that I have tons of money, hell, I have too many boats. I am far from well off. But , I do work hard for what I want.
This particular boat is said to have been built IN the Samson yard, not backyard built OR designed !!! The first PLUS.
But she has been neglected and with no decent surveyors around makes it hard. I dont care about insurance. Dont need it where I would keep her.
The books from Samson and Harley of course talk about the great strength etc of the medium. Yet people here say the opposite.
Opinions are like assholes.. as we know. Everyone has one.
So its hard to weed out the sheer truth.
I love wood boats and many hate them.
Mine is 102 years old and doing just fine.
I am probably going to take on that old Ferro Schooner after selling the one I live on now. As my kids grow up I just keep buying smaller boats so they cant move back in with me. Works well.
So what is the general take on Samson YARD built boats, not homemade ones off plans?
I do love her lines and a couple of her sisters have made several circumnavigations. She is a staysail plan. I dont know her displacement.
54 on deck, 73 overall. 7 in draft, almost 16 wide. 
This particular one has a very odd wishbone rig that goes way up between the masts I dont care much for. Seems to much wt aloft. The others did not have that with the same sail plan? 
Also, she is deck stepped and not keel stepped on the masts. They are said to be of steal. Cement deck. Rotted out spreaders.. all of them.
I have NO idea how the heck to attach items to cement. I use Dolphinite to bed everything. Heavy backing plates. etc. I heard fuel can really ruin them.
The hull looks rough, scrapes and dings. Yet she is 1976 and still floating at her lines. Dry inside with no rust streaks. 
What do I make of this boat? I want to sail around the world. Not in a bay.
Many of her design have done so. She is a Samson C-lord.
Andie


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

There's a 90' Ferro yacht that's unfinished with a big Cat motor in it up in my boat yard that's for free if ya move it. Frankly, I wouldn't touch it as there's all kinds of rust streaks inside and it's been open to the weather for years. I have seen a few very nice Ferro boats though. One recently that you'd swear was glass.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Heraclitus Report: April 2009

There are others, personally - well never would own one but it is interesting the number that do circumvent...


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

schoonersailor said:


> I must say, I am exhausted from reading all the posts on ferros !
> I have been looking at a old Samson Schooner to buy.


Well since you posted..

In your case I would say go for it..You have done your homework and are not the first time boat buyers looking for that "Cheap blue water excape pod"

You acknowledge the risks and accept a level of satisfaction to deal with loosing money invested.

So this could be a win win you you.

I would have taken one in sail ready condition if it was given to me but I just wont buy one...there is one in my town that the yard wont even lift out of the water for fear of it breaking in half but its still floating..somthing to say for it anyway.


----------



## osirissail (Oct 27, 2009)

Ferro-cement was abandoned when FRG boats being mass produced by the hundreds out of moulds and sold for considerably lower prices than "properly made F/C." You could "screw up" the manufacture of the a FRG boat and get away with it for decades. Not so with F/C. Not to mention the shear weight difference requiring deeper draft and less nimble-ness.


----------



## RichardReynolds (Nov 10, 2009)

Not true seabreeze. Here in Oregon we have been busy for the last ten years or so replacing our coast bridges. The rebar is rusting out. The rebar they are using for the new bridges is green in color. Probably epoxy coated.


----------



## chris31519 (Nov 25, 2009)

In the early 1980s, when I was young and foolish I bought a 30' ferro hull and fitted it out with a junk rig. Never had enough money for the engine so used an outboard. The thing stopped about as quickly an oil tanker. I sold it half-finished and bought a 22' GRP boat. I saw the boat some years later - it had been through three owners after me and never did get finished. Common trick to underestimate the time and costs of fitting out a boat. This is not an uncommon stroy for ferro boats which is why they have such a bad reputation. The material itself is not the issue it's how it's built: you can have good or bad boats form any material. Ferro is pretty much indestructible in my experience. If you are looking for a large (min 45') HEAVY displacement cruiser at low costs then you could do worse. Personally I would buy something more mainstream as the purchase costs are only part of the story in boat ownership.


----------



## endu45 (Sep 3, 2015)

Sorry to say much of what has been said here is very inaccurate. Peter Ibold was American, and won his design award in the USA. His design for the Endurance 35 was specifically made for construction in ferrocement, perhaps due to his appreciation of the material from a civil engineering perspective. Ferrocement built hulls do not need to be any heavier than heavy displacement wooden or steel boats. Sure badly built homeconstructed boats gave the material a bad name, but Windboats Marine, for one, constructed many hundreds of boats in the Endurance range before rising labour costs and reducing GRP construction costs priced ferro out of the market. Ferrocement is still about the most durable, maintenance free and easily repaired hull materials and is immensely strong for its weight, but hard to insure due to the cowboy built boats of the 70/80s and subsequent total loss claims.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

just in time to save the OP :Luxury:


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

As none have been built in recent years ,if it has lasted this long, it is probably good, in terms of rebar rust. 
They are heavier than most , zero hull deterioration, regardless of abuse and neglect, but the wood used on them usually rots first. I have never heard of any one of them ever suffering structural damage at sea, in any conditions, but having lost my own ferro boat on a Fijian coral reef, I know they dont stand up to point load impact very well.
If you get one cheap enough, you definitely can get your monys worth out of them. The gear on some is worth far more than the boat sells for. A friend got one for free, which gave him a free rig ,mast, sails, anchors, anchor rodes, winches, etc for his new brentboat.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)




----------

