# Can a fiberglass boat be too old?



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

Looking at a Morgan 34 - 1966 ( only 5 years less old than me!)

The boat for its age is in good shape and has been owned by a retired Navy chief for the past 7 years - he has upgraded/repaired a lot on the boat - new rudder, new centerboard, new ports, seems solid structure wise, no soft spots , good compression post/base - has a Yanmar, newer sails , rigging looks good - not new but certainly not original, all in all a good boat that is cosmetically a little challenged .

My only real concern is just that it is a 66 - 51 years old - I have had older boats before - just wondering if anything I might be overlooking when looking at a boat that old.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

These Boats can be very nice certainly well built, should be surveyed carefully to be sure the important things like rigging are not original but anything can be replaced. I don't know what you mean by cosmetics but practically speaking some things can't be fixed. There are so many levels of classic standard trim just be realistic on what you can live with.

When fiberglass was first used nobody knew the lifespan so everything was overbuilt, certainly not a bad thing. Engineering was just different back then.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

albrazzi said:


> When fiberglass was first used nobody knew the lifespan so everything was overbuilt, certainly not a bad thing. Engineering was just different back then.


This is so true. They used a lot more resin, so osmosis blistering less common. Hulls heavy and thicker than they would today. Usually no wood or other cores in hull, but deck is likely cored, so need checking for delamination. Also check reinforcing where there are loads, like winch bases, stanchion etc. Water often gets down through the bolts. Not hard to repair. The gelcoat on hull and deck does weather. But by now many of those older boats have been painted. If done with a 2-part polyurethane, should be better than gelcoat.

So far as the hull is concerned, I would have it hauled and checked for blistering. Not a problem really, but costs $$ and time to correct. Below decks, bulkheads and any rigging attachments should be carefully checked. No good having good rigging if chain plates are not soundly attached!

Has engine been replaced? Hopefully has a newer diesel? (Oops, see it has a Yanmar!)

In looking for a pic (it's a pretty boat!) I found this link. It has some tips on what to look for:
Used boat notebook: Morgan 34

Great boat once restored. Hopefully the price is right!


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

If the boat isn't soft, I'd think thru-hulls and standing rigging (chain plates, too).
If that's all good, and the engine is OK...shoot, why not?
Nobody yet knows what the life of an early-built fiberglass boat is. 

Everything else can be done at leisure.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

RegisteredUser said:


> If the boat isn't soft, I'd think thru-hulls and standing rigging (chain plates, too).


That Sailing mag link said it had gate valves on the thru hulls. If they are still there, a change to at least ball valves may be warranted. How did they get the straight threads on thru hulls to mate to a gate valve back then? I should know, but have forgotten - They used to do that before surveyors and ABYC set them straight


----------



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

Its actually out of the water on a trailer in the guys front yard - he sails it 7 months a year and stores it at home during hurricane season - its well equipped - no blisters - being that he is a retired single ex-Navy guy - he has kept the maintenance up but the cabin needs some sprucing up a bit - OK with me but the wife would need a few cosmetic changes - 

He lives about 8 miles from the marina - told me last time he hauled it - he carried the mast back on a 1997 Honda Civic that he built a special rack for - that I would have liked to have seen - he now hauls it on a rack on the trailer - its a big trailer.

I have to make a decision by end of July -have been looking at several boats in locally ( Florida) nice thing about boat buying here in the summer - you can take your time - there are a limited number of buyers for older boats ,in the summer even less.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Take a look at http://www.proglassinc.com/assets/boat.pdf. Apparently, fiberglass will likely outlive everyone on the forum.

Gary


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

When I was researching fiberglass construction back in the '70s because of hysteria about it's longevity. Found that some of the first resin constructed boats from the late '40s were still in use. Okay, that was only 30 years, but these boats weren't fiberglass reinforced plastic but cotton reinforced plastic. The resin was polyester but the fabric was COTTON. If Crp boats can last 30 plus years, wonder if there is any longevity issues with FRP boats.

Personally, my 1974 Westsail looks as good as new after three trips to SoPac not all under our ownership. My current 1969 P35 is still as solid as when it was built. Have sailed it to Hawaii without any issues.

Wouldn't worry about an old Morgan that was built when Charlie still owned the company. Later ones, post '71 after He'd sold the company may be another story.


----------



## Pendragon35 (Jun 26, 2014)

I have an Alberg 35 built in 1965. She was in great condition when I got her, thanks to owners who had kept her up and re powered her with a Yanmar 3gm30. I've worked on getting some things in order and I have an infinite to do list lol. Right now I"m working on the running rigging. It works but needs renewal. But the basic hull and deck structure? solid. I've had a couple smaller sailboats from the early 70s (Catalina 22, Tanzer 22, and they've all been solid. FRG hulls last a LONG time...IF they are well maintained.


----------



## cshrimpt (Jun 8, 2015)

I have a 30 year old Pacific Seacraft. The hull is very thick, maybe 3/4 inch in some places. She's stiff as a board and not a single blister. It's all in the construction and maintenance. I'd say my hull is good as when she was built. No telling how long she'll last, probably another 30 years.

Shrimp


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

There are signs that some of the early fiberglass boats may have problems, possibly because the fiberglass is too thick. But I wouldn't walk away from a good old boat just because of this as that's what inspection and surveys are for.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

If it survey's good, I think you may be better off than newer.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Hell yeah, the hull and spars will go forever, but everything else has an expiration date. So, what really kills them are those things,sails,,, engine... interior trim. Sal


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

cshrimpt said:


> I'd say my hull is good as when she was built. No telling how long she'll last, probably another 30 years.
> Shrimp


FRP does last for a long time. Problem is what to do with those old hulls. I saw them chainsaw a 30ft hull at our marina. The hull looked OK, but the boat had been neglected. It would have taken a lot of $$$ and work to make it usable. So they sit at marinas. Owner either keeps paying for storage or disappears. It can cost $3-$4k pa just to have boat sit on hard. Getting rid of the boat can be a problem. Our local boatyards are full of unused boats. Even giving them away can be difficult.

There are often articles and papers about the subject, but recycling doesn't get much traction, probably because of poor economics. This boat industry article discusses the subject:
http://boatingindustry.com/top-stories/2017/01/12/aging-recycling-hulls-a-looming-crisis/
Maybe new boats should be built from metals or plastics that can more easily be profitably recycled?

Best way at present, may be for new owner to buy an old boat like that Morgan and give it a new lease of life!


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

Morgan is a big heavy haul will last you many more years.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Sal Paradise said:


> Hell yeah, the hull and spars will go forever, but everything else has an expiration date. So, what really kills them are those things,sails,,, engine... interior trim. Sal


What really kills boats are owners, and older boats have had more owners!


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I have a balsa cored fiberglas boat purchased new in 1985. I am the only owner. The boat has been in the water for most of her life only spending perhaps 7 or 8 winters on the hard. Shiva was built by Conyplex in Holland.

There are no blisters... delamination of any signs of degradation to the hull and deck aside from UV damage to gelcoat which cleans up very nicely with Colinate... and the odd scratches and nicks all caused by others by the way. There is no oil canning... or flexing of the hull even under gale force winds The bulkheads are tabbed to the hull.

I can't speak for other boats or builders... but I can for my boat, Contest 36, 1985 and its hull is perfectly fine... 32 years on.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Don0190 said:


> What really kills boats are owners, and older boats have had more owners!


There are good owners and bad owners. I always try to be the guy you want to buy a Boat from.


----------



## oysterman23 (Jul 22, 2011)

I have a 1967 Morgan 24/5 
and I sail it 3/4 of the year in the northeast. I was just out double reefed in 30_35 mph gusts on Great South Bay and she handled like a charm in the chop and slop those winds tend to generate here. My hull is solid the rigging nicely over sized for Morc racing. the centerboard system was easy to modernize and improve operability. I know several friends working on 34's and they are tough boats. Nice with a 3cyl Yanmar if poss. the main things on all these boats is clean them down to their privates probe the bulkheads and plan to replace the shrouds if your going to do anything serious. Give em a coat of paint buy sails and go go go They sail well and the "tender" ignores their overall stability. once in the seventies coming back from montauk brought one in Fire Island Inlet wind was up and blowin south west... dropped sail off the coast guard station and sailed all the way home to Babylon on bare poles... It was fun! Incidently I believe the early decks were sandwiched fir marine ply which was superb back then far superior to the crap produced off shore now. thats my 2$ those boats are still worth the love. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

To get to the original, question, the Morgan 34 was a really nice boat for that era. They were better built than later Morgans, sailed well for the day, and with their shoal draft still make good coastal cruisers in venues with shallow waters to explore. The keel/cb arrangement is a nice feature allowing the boat to go to windward well with the board up, Run pretty well with the drag reduced by raising the board, and allow the helm to be balanced by partially raising the board. They have a very usable interior layout.

But to some of the points above,



albrazzi said:


> When fiberglass was first used nobody knew the lifespan so everything was overbuilt, certainly not a bad thing. Engineering was just different back then.


That is a myth that has little bearing in fact. I explain this in more detail below, but by and large boat designers and builders new exactly how strong fiberglass was. They also knew that fiberglass was way more flexible than wood when compared on a pound for pound basis, so they looked for a compromise to get closer to the stiffness of a wooden hull without getting so wildly heavy that the boats could not sail well. The bulked up the hulls with larger proportions of mat and resin than is ideal from either a strength or durability standpoint. So while glass hulls of that era were often slightly thicker than the boats that followed they did not necessarily start life stronger and they are more prone to fatigue than later designs.



FreeAgent said:


> They used a lot more resin, so osmosis blistering less common. Hulls heavy and thicker than they would today. Usually no wood or other cores in hull, but deck is likely cored, so need checking for delamination.


Using more resin has no impact on the likelihood of blistering. In fact its the resin which is the primary originator of blistering. Osmosis blistering was less common in some of these earlier boats since they used a different resin formulation before the Oil crisises of the 1970's. Boat builders began using the reformulated resins around 1973/74 and they were ubiquitous by the late 1970's. As the problem became readily apparent by the mid-1980's builders began moving towards boat building techniques which minimized blisters even more effectively than the early pre-reformulation resins.

Fiberglass boats had wooden cores almost from day one. Some of the earliest boats used materials like Masonite which is a disaster, and plywood which is not much better. By the very early 1960's most production builders had moved to using balsa coring because it is lighter and less prone to rapidly rotting than plywood. There have always been a limited number of companies which did not core decks, and the British in particular preferred closely spaced frames to coring, but boats built with un-cored decks are the exception for any period in fiberglass boat building.



travlin-easy said:


> Take a look at http://www.proglassinc.com/assets/boat.pdf. Apparently, fiberglass will likely outlive everyone on the forum.
> Gary


Whenever this topic rolls out, Gary likes to role this link out. This link supports some of what I am explaining below. The testing done on the Coast Guard boats is interesting. These boats show how durable a properly built Fiberglass boat can be. In this test, the hull has retained all of its tensile, compressive, flexural and roughly 90% of its sheer capacity after 20 years of hard service. But as the article notes: "These were Single skin FRP construction was reinforced by transverse aluminum frames,* a decidedly conservative approach at the time of construction. *Laminate schedules consisted of alternating plies of 10 ounce boat cloth and 1 ounce mat" (bold and underline added for emphasis)

The Coast Guard boats represent a wildly unusual and superior construction to the typical production sailboat of the era. In the description these boats had less than 10% of their reinforcing in mat. Production sailboats of that era often approached 25% ratios. Mat starts out weaker and factigues much more rapidly. Mat is particularly poor in impact perpendicular to the laminate and horizontal sheer and delamination of the mat layers are general the failure mode in impact.

This is what the article is referring to when it says, "The reason solid skin laminate were 3/8 to ¾ inches thick was because the laminates of the time had what we would today consider to be poor mechanical properties."

Beyond that, these boats had aluminum frames which greatly limit flexure, especially as compared to typical pre-mid-1970's era boats which had almost no internal framing to control flexure. Flexure is a major cause of fatigue which in turn greatly reduces impact resistance, stiffness and resistance to bending capacities.

The Shields is another atypical boat of that era being the pet project of Corny Shields, the then owner of Chris Craft who personally supervised every aspect of the design and construction of these boats. Quality control was extremely high on these boats since as one designs, they were expected to roll out the door with in an extremely tight weight range. While the article does not comment on its structural condition, I would expect that the Shields would be in unusually good condition for a boat of that era.

Anyway, here is a draft article that I wrote on this topic quite a few years ago. (As was pointed out the insurance study mentioned in the article is no longer available online.)

I would not think that a well- constructed fiberglass has a life span per se. Neither concrete nor fiberglass inherently breaks down or loses strength simply on their own without other factors coming into play. 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 the fiberglass of that era actually 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 F.G. composite items when he designed the Triton and Alberg 35) The reason that the 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 and the limitations of the materials and handling methods used in early fiberglass boats. Early designers and builders had hoped to use fiberglass as a monocoque structure using an absolute minimal amount (if any) framing which they felt occupied otherwise usable interior space.

On its own, fiberglass laminate does not develop much stiffness (by which I mean resistance to flexure) and it is very dense. If you try to create the kind of stiffness in fiberglass that designers had experienced in wooden boats, it takes a whole lot of thickness which in turn means a whole lot of weight. Early fiberglass boat designers tried to simply use the skin of the boat for stiffness with wide spread supports from bulkheads and bunk flats. This lead to incredibly heavy boats and boats that were still comparably flexible compared to earlier wooden boats or more modern designs. (In early designs that were built in both wood and fiberglass, the wooden boats typically weighed the same as the fiberglass boats but were stiffer, stronger, and had higher ballast ratios)

The large amount of flexure in these old boats was a real problem over the life of the boat. 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 overall strength of the hull itself. In simple terms it is the strength of the unsupported hull panel itself (by 'panel' I mean the area of the hull or deck between supporting structures), 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 and the connections were often lightly done.

This fatigue issue is not a minor one. In a study performed by the marine insurance industry looking at the high cost of claims made on older boats relative to newer boats and actually 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. The study noted that boats built during the early years of boat building tended to use a lot more resin accelerators than are used today. Boat builders would bulk up the matrix with resin rich laminations (approaching 50/50 ratios rather than the idea 30/70), and typically used proportionately high ratios of 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 further 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.

I have been looking at a lot of older fiberglass boats in the past few years. One thing that has struck me is the sheer amount of noticeable flexure cracking in areas of high stress, such as bulkheads, chainplate attachment points, hull to deck joints, cabin to deck lines, engine beds and rudder posts, and other high load hardware positions.

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.

In most cases the prices of these older boats are somewhat constrained by their obsolescence. Sailors who buy modern boats have certain expectations that these older boats cannot or do not deliver. These factors can be faddish or fashion, but many are simple functional matters. Newer designs potentially offer more space, better performance and ease of handling, bigger engines and more robust electrical systems to power all the conveniences of home. While there are clearly people out there who prefer the older styled boats, for better or worse, in the marketplace there is a sense that they are simply worth less. And it is that market value which sets a ceiling on how much a boat is worth, no matter how perfect a condition it is in.

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 of 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 restored, 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, 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 owner who 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


----------



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

Thanks for the input on the Morgan, my only real issue with the boat - even though a 34 - pretty small down below - I was looking at an 1982 Hunter 30 - it actually has a longer water line and same amount of cabin room, the Morgan is a better boat but as far as room goes - you don't get anymore even though its 4 feet longer - about the same beam. 
Going on vacation for 2 weeks when I come back will have to make decision - 
Morgan 34 -$10K 1966
Hunter 30 - $4K - 1982
Tartan 30 - $7K - 1977

All have Yanmar diesels - none have structural issues , the Hunter is the most lightly outfitted but the cheapest ( has new Profurl and genoa). Florida boats - so pretty much no chance they will be sold before I get back - no one buys sailboats in Florida in July.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Of those three I personally like the T30 - nice sailing boats on all points of sail. Not a bad layout either (although if you are 6' like me, you hit your head when you sit on the settee). They are, however, plagued with keelbolts rusting out, and the bolts are hard to get at without tearing out the cabin sole - check them carefully with a flashlight and a mirror. I'm not a fan of those Hunter 30's and there is a reason they are cheap. I suspect the M34 is the toughest of the three, but again I am not much a fan of how they sail.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

My-o-My - Even although Jeff contradicted what I said, I am not going to touch that


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

The Morgan 34 sloop is just their standard sloop. However, if you look at the 33 Out Island, it has more interior space than most 41s. You may want to do a bit more shopping before taking the plunge.

Good luck on whatever you decide upon,

Gary


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> The large amount of flexure in these old boats was a real problem over the life of the boat. 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 overall strength of the hull itself. In simple terms it is the strength of the unsupported hull panel itself (by 'panel' I mean the area of the hull or deck between supporting structures), 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 and the connections were often lightly done.
> 
> [/FONT]


Jeff, how does one determine how much flexure is occurring on a used boat during a survey?

How much flexure would be considered too much?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

David, 

There really is not way to quantify that. The insurance company study that I mentioned,discussed a couple conditions. There were panels that had obvious signs of flexure, which they described as having visible spider cracks or linear radial cracks. They described these as appearing in areas near hardware or glassed-in elements like bulkheads, rudder posts, knees, and flats where bending and sheer forces are concentrated due to the relative stiffness of these locations. The report mentioned a frequent visible trouble spot near and parallel to the hull to deck joint as well (Particularly on boats with rolled out hull to deck joints and 'shoe box' construction. 

But the study also discussed areas of these hulls which showed no visible sign of flexure but which also were greatly diminished in strength due to fatigue. The report talked specifically about some of the larger panels on boats where the whole panel would flex with each wave or gust. In these areas, even though the deflections were tiny, the cumulative effect of these frequent small deflection cycles had created a weakening due to to fatigue that was made worse by the less than ideal construction techniques of the era. 

You can sometimes feel what these small cycle deflections feel like when a wave hits an unsupported bow, or bottom panel. If you pay attention, you can feel the initial shock of the wave hitting the boat, and then a smaller vibration that follows. That smaller vibration is the hull returning to shape and then finding neutral position after the rebound. 

Similarly, I was once with a surveyor who was surveying at a boat from the 1960s. This boat had a comparatively flat area that was the beginning of the counter near the stern. The surveyor described the area as being 'leathery'. I asked how he was using the term, and he said, 'sort of flexible'. He had me hit the bottom not very hard with the side of my fist and I could feel the hull panel flex a little and vibrate momentarily after the hit. When asked for a prognosis, he said, "Its not good but its typical to find areas like that on these old boats." He thought that it was probably okay for coastal cruising, but he also said, "There's not much that you can do about it", then added "Nothing lasts forever". 

I would like to hear Boatpoker's comments on this topic as well. 

Jeff


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Our boat is 44 years old and feels very stiff still. It is a very heavily built cored hull with ring frames, longitudinal's, well bonded bulkheads and furniture and in some sections double layers of balsa creating a glass/balsa/glass/balsa/glass thickness of 5". I've yet to see panel flexing but who knows what the future holds but I do believe the boat will outlive me. There are other boats out there that are literally shaking themselves to death, un-cored boats with large unsupported panels could be ones to avoid.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Go here: http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/Sy...tFileKey=f17ab593-ca70-4941-af1c-e1a37718416e
What this implies, if one has any possible doubts in the integrity of any fiberglass hull, intends to some 'serious' sailing with such a boat, then one should CUT a sample from the hull and send this 'coupon' out to a 'mechanics laboratory' for evaluation/validation of remaining structural/strength values.

Also do web search for the "fiberglass fatigue study" done by the US Navy ... Jeff_H originally posted such reference .... listed 'somewhere' here in the Sailnet 'archives'.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Jeff_H said:


> David,
> 
> There really is not way to quantify that. The insurance company study that I mentioned,discussed a couple conditions. There were panels that had obvious signs of flexure, which they described as having visible spider cracks or linear radial cracks. They described these as appearing in areas near hardware or glassed-in elements like bulkheads, rudder posts, knees, and flats where bending and sheer forces are concentrated due to the relative stiffness of these locations. The report mentioned a frequent visible trouble spot near and parallel to the hull to deck joint as well (Particularly on boats with rolled out hull to deck joints and 'shoe box' construction.
> 
> ...


I agree with your surveyor buddy. Why do we expect boats to last forever but readily accept that cars may last only 5-10 years in a much more forgiving environment. I believe longeivity of a boat structure is almost completely determined by original construction quality and materials. My old trawler built in 1971 with four Toronto/Bahamas trips, two great circle trips (one of which extended to Honduras is back in the Great Lakes and still going strong. She had a little over 20,000 hours on her when I sold her in 2006. Don't know how many hours now.

Last year I surveyed a 2 year old Hanse 35 and found that I could flex the hull at the quarter below the waterline almost half an inch with hand pressure. I surveyed a 1 year old 450 lagoon and found a spot on the hull that was 3mm thick.

Boats are no longer built by boat builders, they are built by the accounting department.

There are thousands of 30 and 40 year old boats still cruising but I don't believe that many of the current crop of production boats will still be on the water in 40 years.

People refer to the "old" boats as over built and I have never agreed with that premise as thickness has nothing to do with strength. Many of these older boats may have been an inch thick but made with largely chopped strand mat and an 80% resin to glass ratio which is roughly the opposite advised by NA's today (depending on cloth weaves used) for maximum strength.

One of my favourite of the older builders was CS. They had a quality control program before they turned the lights on the factory floor and they stuck with it til' the end. I've often said that if you've surveyed one CS model, you have surveyed them all. I cannot name another builder that trustworthy in fact most of them had no QC program.

Punch line .... A well built 40-50 year old FRP boat has to be judged on it's individual merits and not on the manufacturer or model line. There are some terrible ones out there among some very sound boats that may still be cruising when my grand kids go boat shopping.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

Because of "osmosis" (and subsequent hydrolysis of the polyester resin), most older boats around here have had the bottoms stripped and a barrier coat applied to help slow down the break down of the polyester resin. When we acquired our present boat about 11 years ago, it had some minor blistering, so we had the bottom done at a local repair shop. Sandblasted (peeling might have been better), blister ground out. Left ashore over winter and part of summer before filling holes, resurfacing and coating with epoxy barrier coat. No re-occurrence of blisters 11 years later. Having our boats hauled for 1/2 the year probably helps.

One thing observed in the 70s, was that initially many owners used antifouling paints like TBTF and Vinylux. Each year additional coats were applied. After several years, there was a pretty good vinyl coating on the bottom. Then the self-polishing antifoulings like Micron came along. These were soft, sluffed off as the boat sailed and promised several seasons without repainting. Many owners removed the build up of vinyl paint and applied Micron. A year or two later, we started to notice blisters! So off the paint came, barrier coat like Interprotect applied and then more Micron. Seldom saw blisters again. Seemed the vinyl paint provided some osmosis protection while the porous Micron provided very little.

My advice, if buying an older boat would be to do everything you can to keep water out of the laminate! Eventually it will slowly enter and attack the polyester resin. To slow this down, strip bottom and apply multiple barrier coats (following manufacturers instructions). Then you favorite anti-fouling.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Excellent post by FreeAgent. 

When refurbishing any hull laminate, one must remember that most of the stress bearing on such 'membrane' surfaces occurs AT or very near the interior and exterior SURFACES ... and acknowledging entirely that gelcoat isn't structural, nor to any extent is the matting layer below the gelcoat. Hydrolysis is probably the predominant destroyer of polyester, etc. resin composites ... causes a break-up / 'cleaving' of those long chain molecules. So, barrier coats, epoxy, etc. ... anything that retards such water permeation (even as water vapor permeation) has a high chance of preventing such hydrolysis, and of course the 'blisters' that are more of a sign/symptom of laminate destruction due to ongoing hydrolysis. 
When cutting such a 'coupon' for mechanical testing as previously mentioned , the primary analysis should be for the apparent accumulated level of 'hydrolysis', especially if the resinated laminate shows up 'weak' in prior tensile strength testing.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> 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 of 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.
> 
> [/FONT]


Jeff, your whole post was very instructive, love the house analogy. A buyer who has the desire for their own house or boat,lacks money but has the ability to put in the sweat equity to get it back in shape themselves might do okay, at least in terms of use. Maybe someone handy can still pull it off, maybe with some used parts. But, overall it is a losing proposition, and I really think you nailed it.

Labor is a big expense. Last Sunday, anticipating a trip to Lake George, NY I took my boat out on the trailer and pressure washed off. At the same time I talked to the yard about blocking up to paint the bottom, but - weather turned bad...changed my plans. a few days away on vacation, I come back to my house is a mess, I have too many projects at home and then back to work Monday where its hectic - so guess what - all I have time for, and barely, its to put her back in the water this weekend. Back she goes with her old paint. I have no time for maintenance! Barely time to sail. My house takes the bulk of my money and time.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

Jeff_H said:


> There really is not way to quantify that. The insurance company study that I mentioned,discussed a couple conditions. There were panels that had obvious signs of flexure, which they described as having visible spider cracks or linear radial cracks. They described these as appearing in areas near hardware or glassed-in elements like bulkheads, rudder posts, knees, and flats where bending and sheer forces are concentrated due to the relative stiffness of these locations. The report mentioned a frequent visible trouble spot near and parallel to the hull to deck joint as well (Particularly on boats with rolled out hull to deck joints and 'shoe box' construction.
> 
> Jeff


Perhaps the fatigue issue here is related to stress corrosion of the glass fibers. If tension on the encapsulated fibers is kept below a certain level, then stress corrosion does not occur and the lifetime of the fibers may be very long. In other words, the glass fibers that are properly protected would not be subject to the kind of fatigue that occurs with cold working in metal. Of course, there are a number of fiberglass quality issues that are not so simply discussed.

One way to reach the threshold for stress corrosion is to severely bend the fibers--perhaps at tabbing or otherwise sharp turns in a mold during construction. Fatigue from real world loading might then take its toll at features than create stress risers.

IMHO, the notion that repeated flexure of fiberglass panels will ultimately lead to structural failure seems to be overly simplistic. Surely it can happen, but not necessarily in all cases. My 40+ yr old Dyer Dhow, for example, has a very flexible hull, but is still going strong and shows no signs of weakness. We did, however, repair tabbing that had failed at the rear thwart seat. The rest of the hull is free standing, with the other seats being suspended by bronze knees attached to the oak rubrail.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

fallard said:


> Perhaps the fatigue issue here is related to stress corrosion of the glass fibers. If tension on the encapsulated fibers is kept below a certain level, then stress corrosion does not occur and the lifetime of the fibers may be very long. In other words, the glass fibers that are properly protected would not be subject to the kind of fatigue that occurs with cold working in metal. Of course, there are a number of fiberglass quality issues that are not so simply discussed.
> 
> One way to reach the threshold for stress corrosion is to severely bend the fibers--perhaps at tabbing or otherwise sharp turns in a mold during construction. Fatigue from real world loading might then take its toll at features than create stress risers.
> 
> IMHO, the notion that repeated flexure of fiberglass panels will ultimately lead to structural failure seems to be overly simplistic. Surely it can happen, but not necessarily in all cases. My 40+ yr old Dyer Dhow, for example, has a very flexible hull, but is still going strong and shows no signs of weakness. We did, however, repair tabbing that had failed at the rear thwart seat. The rest of the hull is free standing, with the other seats being suspended by bronze knees attached to the oak rubrail.


A couple quick comments, first of all, there is no doubt that fatigue is more likely to occur and be visible at stress risers. Boat designers knew that pretty much from the beginning of fiberglass boat building. For example early boats "floated" the bulkheads so that only the tabbing touched the hull. (As an aside, this is one of my main concerns with modern production boat building techniques where bulkheads are glued in.)

The fatigue issue is not simple. Stiffness and impact resistance is dependent on fiber length and the bond between the fibers and the resin.

Early fiberglass fibers had shorter, fatter, and more brittle fibers. Improper fabric handling of that era created localized areas with broken fibers with associated reduction in resistance to impact, flexure, and increased fatigue of adjacent fibers.

The result of this fatigue is a shortening of the fibers an a horizontal sheering of the fibers. This effectively reduces the percentage of the fiber that is behaving as being fully bonded.

So what does that mean for a real boat. In normal service it probably means very little. While it does mean more flexure, the boat remains adequate for most normal service.

But it does come into play when people talk about exposing one of these boats to the higher and more frequent repetitive loadings. It also comes into play when one of these fatigue weakened areas are exposed to an impact.

This is showing up in real life failures. For example, Sail Magazine had an article about a Triton which hit a wave very hard and it's hull to deck joint tore open.

It was the more frequent impact claims with larger than expected scale of damage that was the reason cited in the study as the motivation for the insurance industry study that I mentioned.

I also want to comment on your Dyer. Very early on, the industry knew these kinds of issues. The U.S. government understood the majority of the issues with resin rich laminates and larger amounts of non-directional fabrics. Dyers were originally designed for use by the military and were constructed to the government specification and would therefore be less fatigue prone than a typical boat of this era.

But it can reasonably be assumed that the stiffness, if not the impact resistance, of the panels have been reduced over time.

Jeff


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

In the past, polyester fiberglass tanks were used quite frequently in the chemical process, etc. industries. Typically impending weakness and the beginnings of functional failure was quite often observed by the onset of exponentially increasing nano/micro-particles (fractured polymers, glass micro-fragments; plus increased non-bonded monomers) in those contained fluids.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

RichH said:


> In the past, polyester fiberglass tanks were used quite frequently in the chemical process, etc. industries. Typically impending weakness and the beginnings of functional failure was quite often observed by the onset of exponentially increasing nano/micro-particles (fractured polymers, glass micro-fragments; plus increased non-bonded monomers) in those contained fluids.


In the chemical and other process industries, FRP tanks usually have an integral inner lining. This is a resin rich veil layer maybe 200mil thick. The resin is chosen to provide protection against the fluid being contained. The reinforcing in that layer, is a non-woven material, usually but not always C-glass. The C-glass used is very thin (+/- 1oz) and designed to soak up resin. If the type of resin doesn't resist the chemical, it is quite likely that fibres and resin would be found in the contained fluid. But not much to do with the structural part of the laminate, which is often spiral wound. In practice, FRP turned out to not be an ideal material in chemical industry unless it had some other type of liner. (Sorry, some of my "other" career coming out!)

Getting back on subject! Not really much relationship between tanks and boat construction. We have the gelcoat to keep water from the structural laminate, so shouldn't at least have fibres and resin floating away into ocean  Boat builders did use equivalent of the resin rich veil layer between gelcoat and structural laminate to overcome print through of the coarser woven fabric into the gelcoat. This also helped to some extent to protect the structural laminate.

One other thing - FRP structures including boats are designed with a much higher factor of safety than metal structures. This allows for less than perfect fabrication. Very unlikely that even with 50 yrs of aging that the laminate would fail. Especially for the early solid boats.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jeff my boat has integral tanks for water and diesel. Believe they're epoxy lined. Wonder if there are any potential issues with this?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I would think that epoxy or better yet, vinylester lined fiberglass water tanks should be very good for a lifetime. I really don't know about diesel. Fiberglass tanks for diesel used to be a major no-no, but I have not seen anything on this in decades. Maybe Rich would have a better idea. 

Jeff


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

The problem with most such composite water tanks is adverse and continual monomer emissions. There are some NSF potable-rated epoxides (Eg.: NSP-120, etc.) but there's a surface ratio to water mass limitation, which implies that even the 'best'(ultra-low amine) epoxies are really limited in 'potable' ratings. 
Epoxies are pretty much excluded as components inside (cGMP) bio-pharma and 'ultra-purity' processes.

There was an entity several years ago who offered PolyEthylene (epoxy 'wettable" pre-peg/'etched') panels/sheets for lining of composite potable tanks ... but then simply disappeared; probably due to the difficulty of welding PE at the panel seams and unable to guarantee a complete 'seal'. 
Ive yet to find NSF potable ratings on rotomolded, etc. PE tanks; plus, its impossible to include internal impact baffles inside the large ones. 

I stay with with (180-200 grit surface) Stainless Steel for drinking water; fab-ed together with 'good' welding .... then all the welds ground and polished (by me). A good SS fabricator will arrange so that most of the welds aren't on the 'corners' and 90° surfaces where grinding and polishing is beyond a PITA.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

RichH said:


> The problem with most such composite water tanks is adverse and continual monomer emissions.


Has this thread got off track or what??

There is a standard for potable water equipment that includes tanks, piping, fittings, etc. NSF 61. A number of fiberglass and other tank manufacturers have that certification. I have not read it , but it does check for contamination caused by leeching of plasticisers, resins etc. Many of our boats probably predate this standard but any new tanks or fittings should have an NSF 61 label. I believe there is also be a CSA standard. Neither easy to figure out! Maybe there is a simple guide somewhere? ADDED: I don't find marine tanks with those certifications, but do find fittings. Polyethylene tanks claim to meet FDA regulations for foodstuff.

When algae forms in water, some forms can be dangerous to your health. We no longer use our tanks for potable water, but when we did, we would always treat with chlorine bleach at beginning of season, allow to sit for first week or so, then flush once or twice until taste was acceptable, at least in coffee. Otherwise we drink bottled drinks. Beer is OK. Now we take along large bottled water jugs. Never out for that long.

PS: Found this at PS: https://www.practical-sailor.com/blog/Decontaminating-a-Tainted-Water-Tank-11717-1.html


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sorry guys. Will ask builder what lining is. Rarely use chlorine now as not good for RO membrane. Do have carbon filter in front of it to protect it from HCl so do use occasionally. Rather use a lot of water. More worried about contamination from shore side fills so stick with RO.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> Jeff my boat has integral tanks for water and diesel. Believe they're epoxy lined. Wonder if there are any potential issues with this?


The Alden Challengers were built with integral 80 gallon fuel tanks. The large capacity design was due to the typical gasoline engines of the early 60s (Graymarine was standard).

Some of the tanks have been abandoned due to leaking through keel bolts. The problem exposes itself in water in the fuel(fuel doesn't leak out).

I know of no tank that has shown any problems from fuel exposure.

Mine, at 56 years old, show no problems. The tanks are basically the fiberglass hull above the lead ballast keel, with 4 heavy steel plates on top. All weight designed for the boat. The 80 gallons is nice for trips as we don't need to visit docks for fuel 

Plus I have no dirty fuel problems and change filters every other season.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Tom great to hear . Thank you. With a quick search find companies usin 2.7 mil of gelcoat to line grp tanks in commercial applications for potable water.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Jeff_H said:


> I would think that epoxy or better yet, vinylester lined fiberglass water tanks should be very good for a lifetime. I really don't know about diesel. Fiberglass tanks for diesel used to be a major no-no, but I have not seen anything on this in decades. Maybe Rich would have a better idea.
> 
> Jeff


Polyester FRP diesel tanks in my old 1981 Trendsetter 40. Still going strong and never an issue.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> David,
> 
> There really is not way to quantify that.
> 
> Jeff


I was hoping that maybe someone had worked out numbers such that adding 500 lbs to the backstay should cause no more than 1/4 in deflection. Or something definitive like that.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

Jeff_H said:


> A couple quick comments, first of all, there is no doubt that fatigue is more likely to occur and be visible at stress risers. Boat designers knew that pretty much from the beginning of fiberglass boat building. For example early boats "floated" the bulkheads so that only the tabbing touched the hull. (As an aside, this is one of my main concerns with modern production boat building techniques where bulkheads are glued in.)
> 
> The fatigue issue is not simple. Stiffness and impact resistance is dependent on fiber length and the bond between the fibers and the resin.
> 
> ...


Sorry to take exception to some of your comments, but your opinions don't fully agree with my personal and professional experience with fiber/resin structures. First, the issue of quality control in composite structures has been highly problematic, which makes it very difficult to generalize about manufactured product--let alone across multiple manufacturers and highly variable designs.

Staying with the personal experience, my 27 yr old Clearwater 35 involves a highly rigid structure, with cored hull and deck, along with multiple full and partial bulkheads tabbed to hull and deck. This boat has held up very well and shows no obvious signs of fatigue at the tabbed joints.

On the other hand, my Dyer Dhow has a mostly free-floating hull and it, too, has held up remarkably well. I simply do not see obvious evidence of fatigue, like a loss of stiffness, over the 40 yrs I've owned it.

BTW, the Dyer Dhow that saw military service was plywood. Dyer didn't build it in fiberglass until 1949, at which time the market was probably the recreational boater.

My bottom line is that very different structural approaches can--and do--work in fiberglass if the engineering, materials, and fabrication techniques are sound.


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

Engineering was never much used over the years in boatbuilding. Mostly an art and this carried over into frp boats. As a result, quite a bit of variability as builders and material vendors experimented and learned the new technology. Part of reason many early boats were heavily built. In industry, design methods used for metal tanks, beams, pipes could be transferred to frp. But techniques for complex shape of boat hulls were another thing.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Check out the CCA refurb thread. Jeff H and I discussed in great detail.


----------



## Sailboatguy (Jan 2, 2014)

it's about condition - not age!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Seems to me Jeffh offers common sense. When talking about service life of any structure it's both age and stresses applied that are relevant. A boat that was properly cradled, with no UV exposure, in a humidity controlled environment will have a different service life than an identical sister ship that was doing continual passages, subjected to storms and docking/grounding mishaps, only short hauled to do the bottom, and sailed almost always between 20 and zero latitude. 
Yes mechanical systems may deteriorate from lack of usage but as regards the structure of a sailboat seems common sense both factors are relevant. Think this true for metal,wood, synthetic composite or grp. I've been on early wood Concordias I'd have no issue taking offshore. But also recent production boats where I'd be nervous about losing sight of land. So the other issue is design and execution which is also applicable regardless of material. 
Returning to the OPs original posit. It's would seem knowledge about whether that specific boat was constructed to "best practices ",specific materials involved, its specific history and nature of usage ( a few weeks of benign coastal day sailing v. annual repetitive North Atlantic winter crossings as an example) might help him know is that boat nearing the end of its service life.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

I saw a few new fiberglass motor boats on my landfill this week. The supply of fiberglass hulls and pieces going on the landfill, seems constant. 

A nearby boat yard has a running show of a fiberglass sailboats being saw to pieces and the parts sold. The supply, in this yard alone, seems constant these days. 

All the ragged cut up sections of fiberglass hull - that I see - look like new. The hulls are strong. Neglect of the boat in general has taken a toll on it's parts and appearance. 

The only commonality of these boats that look 50 or so years old, is the design didn't stand the test of time. A half a century on, they're not popular today and hence have no $ value and no takers, for free.


----------

