Lagoon Cat smashed in Thailand

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So it sounds like the discovery was part of a survey. If it was a pre-purchase survey, I bet the owner was devastated and the prospective purchaser so very glad he hired a good surveyor! What a shock for the owner... one wonders if he had any suspicions ahead of time? Odd noises, difficulties in keeping the rig tight and so on.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Jim

Yes, you've got the situation right. He reported no signs, just heavy scratching and gouging from pounding in the surf for three days. This was repaired in Florida before departure. I assume no insurance, hence no proper damage survey.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by smj

Twice as much as what? A similar sized cat? Probably not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read carefully. The question that was in reply too was "are we holding production cats to a higher standard than production monos?". My answer is, since they cost twice as much and are more demanding of a quality product, shouldn't we be holding them to a higher standard? And in any case, while I've seen many a poorly built mono (and called them out on this forum), I've never seen one over about 25' with a hull layup that thin. Cheap speedboats included.

[smj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Read carefully. The question that was in reply too was "are we holding production cats to a higher standard than production monos?". My answer is, since they cost twice as much and are more demanding of a quality product, shouldn't we be holding them to a higher standard? And in any case, while I've seen many a poorly built mono (and called them out on this forum), I've never seen one over about 25' with a hull layup that thin. Cheap speedboats included.

The mono definitely needs a heavier layup to support the stresses of the keel. I've seen an Island Packet with a layup that thin and my friends 1971 Outisland 41 also has spots below the waterline with 1/4" of glass, so it's not just cats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[minaret]

Originally Posted by smj

The mono definitely needs a heavier layup to support the stresses of the keel. I've seen an Island Packet with a layup that thin and my friends 1971 Outisland 41 also has spots below the waterline with 1/4" of glass, so it's not just cats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Cheap speedboats need a heavier layup to support the stresses of the keel? News to me...



Worked on lots of IP, including commissioning all of the new ones delivered to Seattle. Never seen anything approaching that. Worked on some Morgans too.


The fact is, a cat is simply more demanding of quality construction, due to its absolute need for light weight. Light, strong, cheap; you can have any two, but not all three. These are boats which claim to be light and strong, and definitely aren't cheap. Do you really feel people are getting what they paid for?

[smj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Cheap speedboats need a heavier layup to support the stresses of the keel? News to me...



Worked on lots of IP, including commissioning all of the new ones delivered to Seattle. Never seen anything approaching that. Worked on some Morgans too.


The fact is, a cat is simply more demanding of quality construction, due to its absolute need for light weight. Light, strong, cheap; you can have any two, but not all three. These are boats which claim to be light and strong, and definitely aren't cheap. Do you really feel people are getting what they paid for?

Not speed boats, monohull sailboats.

Saw the IP with my own two eyes. It was under the shower pan and it surprised me. My friend told me about his Morgan, surprised him as well.

I agree that most cats are probably more demanding for quality construction, but the Lagoon has never been known as a light boat and probably isn't at the top of the price range for a similar sized cat. Since they are built by Beneteau, I wonder how a Beneteau mono compares to build quality and price to a similar sized mono.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[neilpride]

I dont get it, ask your friend again if they look at the right spot, maybe is confused.

O41 if i remember well are heavy hulls, but maybe dozen of osmosis Jobs in the life of the hull take a toll.

The picture its from a Island Packet trhu hull hole before installing the thing, could be enough glass there to build 2 lagoons...

[Goosebumps]

Originally Posted by monte

I must admit I don't really understand that philosophy of being able to escape busy anchorages in a smaller boat. Our draft is 1..3m and beam 7.25m, but I would rarely come across somewhere that it is more beneficial than a 2m draft keel boat. I would never want to anchor with less than a meter under the keel or less than 2m abeam of something, especially in tidal waters

That philosophy warrants its own thread actually, when I mentioned this earlier it was in line with the risk to get a cored hull scratched resulting in serious costly damage because of water seepage. I got the 15ft beam cat I have because of financial constraints, kids at university... So I initially admired these beamy cats and their amazing interior space. It was only after my actual cruising, coastal sailing, gunkholing the Indian Ocean coasts that it became clear that I actually had the right cat for it. There are small harbors where no yachts anchor, they are very secure protected in any weather, I get in, and the locals admire telling me no yacht ever entered. I have negotiated channels amongst these islands, mangroves realizing that Anything beamier would get badly scratched and that I save sometimes 30 nm on a sail using these channels, not mentioning the advantage of explori g pristine mangrove coast. I would like to ask minnaret what damage water seepage actually causes to cored hull, if is balsa cored, and to other cores. What other cores exist, their pros and cons?


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Southern Star]

Minaret, I too appreciate not only your experience, but your willingness to contribute so much time and effort in assisting others on this site with advice on various projects/repairs etc. That being said, I take issue with two of your comments:

1. Your suggestion that cats cost twice as much and hence should be built twice as well. Cost per what? The are likely twice the price per foot LOA, but I am sure you will agree, in comparing cats with monohulls, that is hardly a valid basis for comparison.
2. Your suggestion that as this is a multihull thread, one can expect irrational support of all catamarans. First of all, many of the posts here merely expressed a concern about trashing a manufacturer based upon these photos and without knowing exactly what the boat was subjected to. IMO, without more precise information, this is a valid concern, farily expressed. What is more, it should be noted that many of these posts were from monohull owners. Secondly, even the multihull owners were not claiming that Lagoons were particularly well built, only that it was difficult to cast blanket aspersions based solely upon those photos. In that connection, one said that he would have to see the boat. That too seems to be fair comment.

On thing with which I am in complete agreement, however, is your assertion that prospective purchasers should attempt to obtain the lamination schedule prior to placing an order. Whether or not one would be able to assess it properly without professional assistance, it would at least provide a basis for comparison. If concerns arose, professional advice could be readily obtained.

Ultimately, the large number of Lagoons that are sailing extensively without hull problems suggests to me that for most purposes, their lamination schedules are probably fine. These are boats, for the most part, that provide a great deal of 'bang for the buck' in terms of accomodation and equipment for the price. Most will never take a pounding on the bottom (or worst still, a reef); indeed, likely less than a monohull with comparable acommodation, as they typically have much less draft.
While the increase in cost of manufacturing with more solid laminates may not be that significant to some in terms of the overall cost of the boat, I am quite confident that Lagoon have found that unless their customers start demanding the same (and are prepared to pay more for having these demands met), it would be counter-productive to build them in that fashion. This again, IMO, speaks to the importance of being an educated consumer in the purchase of any boat.

One should understand that I have always valued solid construction, even at the cost of some performance, in my boat purchases over the years. I have owned a fiberglass folkboat (a Continental 25 built by Whitby boatworks) which had 3/8th inch solid glass at the turn of the bilge. An Alberg 30, built by the same manufacturer and in a similar way. A Bayfield 32C, which while reasonably solid, was nowhere near as solid as my previous two boats. A steel Cartwright 36 Pilothouse Cutter, with which I intended to do some higher lattitued sailing. And my current cat, which is a Solaris Sunstream 40 and which is certainly more solidly, if heavily constructed and equipped than most current production cats:
- 1/2" shoes on the bottom of the keels.
- partial skegs for the rudders
- solid glass, 1/2 inch thick below the waterline
- rig with twin aft stays and and a baby stay for a dedicated staysail/storm jib
- tempered safety-glass fixed portlights
- solid walkway dividing the tramps to the pelican striker
- full width forward pulpit
- all interior bulkheads fully filleted and glassed to the hull.

It is much heavier for the overall size/accomdation than virtually any new cat and this, of course, has a deleterious effect on performance (especially in light air) and on load-carrying capability. These are sacrifices that I am prepared to make on a boat for my purposes, but others are not.

Brad

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Minaret, I too appreciate not only your experience, but your willingness to contribute so much time and effort in assisting others on this site with advice on various projects/repairs etc. That being said, I take issue with two of your comments:

1. Your suggestion that cats cost twice as much and hence should be built twice as well. Cost per what? The are likely twice the price per foot LOA, but I am sure you will agree, in comparing cats with monohulls, that is hardly a valid basis for comparison.
2. Your suggestion that as this is a multihull thread, one can expect irrational support of all catamarans. First of all, many of the posts here merely expressed a concern about trashing a manufacturer based upon these photos and without knowing exactly what the boat was subjected to. IMO, without more precise information, this is a valid concern, farily expressed. What is more, it should be noted that many of these posts were from monohull owners. Secondly, even the multihull owners were not claiming that Lagoons were particularly well built, only that it was difficult to cast blanket aspersions based solely upon those photos. In that connection, one said that he would have to see the boat. That too seems to be fair comment.

On thing with which I am in complete agreement, however, is your assertion that prospective purchasers should attempt to obtain the lamination schedule prior to placing an order. Whether or not one would be able to assess it properly without professional assistance, it would at least provide a basis for comparison. If concerns arose, professional advice could be readily obtained.

Ultimately, the large number of Lagoons that are sailing extensively without hull problems suggests to me that for most purposes, their lamination schedules are probably fine. These are boats, for the most part, that provide a great deal of 'bang for the buck' in terms of accomodation and equipment for the price. Most will never take a pounding on the bottom (or worst still, a reef); indeed, likely less than a monohull with comparable acommodation, as they typically have much less draft.
While the increase in cost of manufacturing with more solid laminates may not be that significant to some in terms of the overall cost of the boat, I am quite confident that Lagoon have found that unless their customers start demanding the same (and are prepared to pay more for having these demands met), it would be counter-productive to build them in that fashion. This again, IMO, speaks to the importance of being an educated consumer in the purchase of any boat.

One should understand that I have always valued solid construction, even at the cost of some performance, in my boat purchases over the years. I have owned a fiberglass folkboat (a Continental 25 built by Whitby boatworks) which had 3/8th inch solid glass at the turn of the bilge. An Alberg 30, built by the same manufacturer and in a similar way. A Bayfield 32C, which while reasonably solid, was nowhere near as solid as my previous two boats. A steel Cartwright 36 Pilothouse Cutter, with which I intended to do some higher lattitued sailing. And my current cat, which is a Solaris Sunstream 40 and which is certainly more solidly, if heavily constructed and equipped than most current production cats:
- 1/2" shoes on the bottom of the keels.
- partial skegs for the rudders
- solid glass, 1/2 inch thick below the waterline
- rig with twin aft stays and and a baby stay for a dedicated staysail/storm jib
- tempered safety-glass fixed portlights
- solid walkway dividing the tramps to the pelican striker
- full width forward pulpit
- all interior bulkheads fully filleted and glassed to the hull.

It is much heavier for the overall size/accomdation than virtually any new cat and this, of course, has a deleterious effect on performance (especially in light air) and on load-carrying capability. These are sacrifices that I am prepared to make on a boat for my purposes, but others are not.

Brad

Great trade-off. I'd rather get home than go fast.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I dont get it, ask your friend again if they look at the right spot, maybe is confused.

O41 if i remember well are heavy hulls, but maybe dozen of osmosis Jobs in the life of the hull take a toll.

The picture its from a Island Packet trhu hull hole before installing the thing, could be enough glass there to build 2 lagoons...

I'll bet if the pic was blown up you could count the laminates. It looks considerable.

Osmosis jobs? Blisters?

[captain58sailin]

I have had the privilege of visiting several boat builders in FL whilst attending a marine surveyor course, and have witnessed the modern techniques of boat building first hand (monos not mutis) and my observation is that many builders use rigidity and strength as the same thing, it is not. I am from the old school regarding boat building, and there have been a few improvements over the last few years. Vacuum bagging works well to insure a complete even saturation of the glass fiber. Epoxy resin has more elasticity than polyester resin, which though I have no proof, I believe makes a stronger boat. A well constructed hand laid up, vacuum bagged hull is superior to a chopper gun, rolled hull. Regardless of how many hulls. There will always be a trade off between strength and weight. If you run your vessel aground and it pounds for any length of time, you should expect serious damage.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I dont get it, ask your friend again if they look at the right spot, maybe is confused.

O41 if i remember well are heavy hulls, but maybe dozen of osmosis Jobs in the life of the hull take a toll.

The picture its from a Island Packet trhu hull hole before installing the thing, could be enough glass there to build 2 lagoons...

See, I have an IP so I resisted posting, but truth is, I feel pretty sure there are places in my hull that are thinner that others, making a hull thick everywhere not only adds weight of course, but can actually decrease strength.
A perfectly designed hull (none exist of course) will fail all at once, if there are areas that are much stiffer and heavier than others, the stress instead of being absorbed is passed on until a weak point is found, eventually that weak point fails even though it was never subjected to an ultimate load.

Captain58 is on the right track, a properly designed wing, hull, automobile frame, bridge or whatever has differing areas of thickness, re-enforcing and strength and ideally will give quite a bit before it breaks, aircraft wings flex in flight because if they didn't, they would eventually break.

[smj]

You can also have a thinner laminate if you have closely spaced and tabbed in bulkheads.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by smj

You can also have a thinner laminate if you have closely spaced and tabbed in bulkheads.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Absolutely, back to aircraft as that is what I know, a monocoque construction is where the skin is the structural member, your skin has to be thick and strong, but in semi-monoque construction stringers etc are used to add strength to the skin, so the skin can be thinner and lighter.

Problem is of course when you have a thin skin without enough stringers to properly support it, and the stringers are not properly tabbed in and or the stringers aren't strong enough.

I believe we have two different boat building mentalities out there, the more modern mentality is light makes right, and boats are built with an expected life limit, like automobiles. Very few if any skilled labor is involved. These boats are built with modern techniques, finite analysis,drop in liners etc. They aren't meant to be inspected and repaired, they are meant to be replaced, just like an automobile.
From a manufacturers perspective, there is a lot of logic in producing a life limited item, one that is meant to be replaced.

Then you have the old school way that is heavy on skilled labor, ends up being heavier and more costly to build, does not lend itself to being scaled up in production rates, but you end up with a hull that may well out live the manufacturer, these are not throw-aways.
Problem is not many of us could afford a boat built in this manner, so many of us in the attempt to own a boat like that have to make do with older ones.

[smj]

An old racing multihull saying "if she doesn't break she was built to heavy, if she breaks she was built to light" there just ain't no winning!
I agree that the older heavy layup construction will probably be around forever. But I also believe that a lightly built boat using modern techniques and materials, done by an experienced craftsman may also have an indefinite life, though you may have to be a little more careful with the upkeep.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk