Shocked by hull material catamaran

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Um, no. An older 40' racing Catamaran like the Extreme40 has a peak speed of about 35kn, with a claimed peak of 40kn. And cost roughly $400,000 new.

A modern GC32 (admittedly much smaller) foiling Catamaran has a top speed of 38kn and costs about $250,000. Almost more impressive is the GC will hit 25kn in 8-10kn true wind speed.

To my knowledge there isn't production 40' foiling cat, but top speeds in the 45kn range are reasonable.


Racing cats live in a world by themselves, almost no boats can come close to their performance, except the big offshore trimarans. My 18' non-foiling racing cat goes upwind at 14kn, and downwind at 20kn, there are few enough cruising boats of any length that can keep up, and she's just a dinghy.

i was thinking when mentioned racing cat to have kitchen, toilet and other goodies. What you refer to is no good for even 1 week cruise.

[PaulinOz]

Quote "those pics are anecdotal evidence in the extreme: who knows what uncored bottoms would have looked like under the same conditions? No mention of the conditions at all...
any number of solid/single skin fiberglass boats lost their bottoms to coral..."

Who would have thought it two yes two sensible rational comments one almost after the other in the same thread in the same day, there may be hope for this internet thingy yet.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by smj

Good reasons not to go mass production.......conscientious of the quality? Guaranteed, if a well designed well built custom boat sold for the same price as a mass produced, there would be no more mass produced boats.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

knowing that so many boats sailing the world of one manufacturer, is some confidence.

Lagoon 400 got nacelle issue, that cost them money, even after 2000+ boats built.

One off, how can one predict with certainty that boat will work as expected and no nasties shows up down the track ?

[Ilona]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

Quote "those pics are anecdotal evidence in the extreme: who knows what uncored bottoms would have looked like under the same conditions? No mention of the conditions at all...
any number of solid/single skin fiberglass boats lost their bottoms to coral..."

Who would have thought it two yes two sensible rational comments one almost after the other in the same thread in the same day, there may be hope for this internet thingy yet.

I understand that you might feel uncomfortable by those pics since you own a Lagoon (in the same category) yourself and thus feel happy if you read something like you quote above.

But @ all: The POINT of the pictures is not to show how badly damaged such a hull becomes after hitting the rocks.

The POINT is to show the way it's built and you see that on the last two pictures. Therefore it is absolutely and totally unnecessary to know more about the thing that happened because that won't change the thin outside layers and balsa core inside that you can see in the last two pics at all,

Don't want to shout but it seems to be something everybody keeps nagging about and that was plain simply not the point. Maybe the point is clear now?

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by Ilona

I understand that you might feel uncomfortable by those pics since you own a Lagoon (in the same category) yourself and thus feel happy if you read something like you quote above.

But @ all: The POINT of the pictures is not to show how badly damaged such a hull becomes after hitting the rocks.

The POINT is to show the way it's built and you see that on the last two pictures. Therefore it is absolutely and totally unnecessary to know more about the thing that happened because that won't change the thin outside layers and balsa core inside that you can see in the last two pics at all,

Don't want to shout but it seems to be something everybody keeps nagging about and that was plain simply not the point. Maybe the point is clear now?

That's bad logic. Without knowing how other construction methods might fare in similar circumstances, how does this picture tell you anything at all? You seem to think that the construction is self-evidently bad, but without any expertise to go on and by ruling out comparisons, you are dooming yourself to guesswork. People on this thread are trying to point out that this can be considered common construction technique. The build may be unnecessarily weak or it may not be, but insisting that the pictures speak for themselves you will never know.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Ilona

I understand that you might feel uncomfortable by those pics since you own a Lagoon (in the same category) yourself and thus feel happy if you read something like you quote above.

But @ all: The POINT of the pictures is not to show how badly damaged such a hull becomes after hitting the rocks.

The POINT is to show the way it's built and you see that on the last two pictures. Therefore it is absolutely and totally unnecessary to know more about the thing that happened because that won't change the thin outside layers and balsa core inside that you can see in the last two pics at all,

Don't want to shout but it seems to be something everybody keeps nagging about and that was plain simply not the point. Maybe the point is clear now?

Couldn't agree more!

[Ilona]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

That's bad logic. Without knowing how other construction methods might fare in similar circumstances, how does this picture tell you anything at all? You seem to think that the construction is self-evidently bad, but without any expertise to go on and by ruling out comparisons, you are dooming yourself to guesswork. People on this thread are trying to point out that this can be considered common construction technique. The build may be unnecessarily weak or it may not be, but insisting that the pictures speak for themselves you will never know.

Whether one thinks it's bad or not bad I want to leave up to everyone. I now totally see that many disagree about that and that's fine with me. Apparently there are many who think it's fine to have a balsa core anywhere or under the waterline. On the other hand I also did read comments from people agreeing that a cored hull -let alone balsa cored- might not be a smart thing to have, even more so under the waterline. Whether ones idea about it has anything to do with common sense or the fact that one owns a balsa-cored boat is of course unknown.

I know from my broker that he had someone wanting to buy a boat, who paid the deposit, haul out and survey that cancelled the buying of the boat at last moment only because he then found out the boat had a balsa cored hull. This showed me that there is a demand for knowing the materials boats are made of. This thread on the other hand shows me there are more people who don't care. Actually that does become clear also in the amount of these type of boats that get sold so I shouldn't be surprised

[double u]

"...while being extremely wary of cored hulls (the further "down" the warier),..."
I'd never buy a used boat cored under water, much less with balsa, would prefer no core at all anywhere (won't find such an animal) on tnb ("the-next-boat") - but still state: those pics don't prove anything at all, pretty sure none of us knows the layups of the uncored bottoms...

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by DotDun

If you can cut mat, mix resin and apply it, you can work on a cored deck/hull. I just added a core to non-cored area to add strength, it's not difficult.

I am not trying to be disrespectful but there is a lot more to it than that to repair a hull with saturated core.
How many times have you heard of a wet deck core, even end grained, blocked and resin impregnated Balsa? If it can get wet above the waterline, why can't it get wet below the waterline?
How many rudders do you think have water in them? I'd bet quite a lot of them do.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by double u

"...while being extremely wary of cored hulls (the further "down" the warier),..."
I'd never buy a used boat cored under water, much less with balsa, would prefer no core at all anywhere (won't find such an animal) on tnb ("the-next-boat") - but still state: those pics don't prove anything at all, pretty sure none of us knows the layups of the uncored bottoms...

13 MM single skin in a Beneteau 50, no core, take it from 1 ft from the FWD keel edge .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Or, they could cut out the moneys sent to shareholders and a lot of (probably) useless upper management, spend it on high quality manufacturing, and pass whatever (if any) real costs involved at a rate commensurate with the level of quality achieved, at a reasonable markup, which should be acceptable to any knowledgeable buyer.

(Yes, I realize this is [mostly] an imaginary, idealistic position.)

Glass and resin are relatively inexpensive.

Doesn't fit into the corporo-capitalistic business model very well though...

What money Groupe Beneteau save by building cheap, they mostly pass on to the buyers. Buyers have a voracious desire to have bigger and bigger boats for less and less money -- GB are only giving people what they want.


I admire them for building so efficiently -- every boat they make, is a lot of boat for the money.


But they do seem to go too far sometimes, especially what concerns structure. The problem here is not the balsa core, but the very thin GRP layup. This is doubly tempting to cat builders because weight is such an issue, but I would not want any boat with such a thin outer skin. Yikes.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What money Groupe Beneteau save by building cheap, they mostly pass on to the buyers. Buyers have a voracious desire to have bigger and bigger boats for less and less money -- GB are only giving people what they want.

V
I admire them for building so efficiently -- every boat they make, is a lot of boat for the money.


But they do seem to go too far sometimes, especially what concerns structure. The problem here is not the balsa core, but the very thin GRP layup. This is doubly tempting to cat builders because weight is such an issue, but I would not want any boat with such a thin outer skin. Yikes.

I can certainly see that build mindset on a racing cat as weight is the enemy but a slow heavy condo cat it doesn't make sense other than as a money saver.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I am not trying to be disrespectful but there is a lot more to it than that to repair a hull with saturated core.
How many times have you heard of a wet deck core, even end grained, blocked and resin impregnated Balsa? If it can get wet above the waterline, why can't it get wet below the waterline?
How many rudders do you think have water in them? I'd bet quite a lot of them do.

Ok, yes, you must remove the wet core as part of the repair. Not brain surgery.

There's no boogey man, core doesn't get wet by itself. It takes some action by some less than qualified person doing something they shouldn't.

All things being equal between 2 boats, one with balsa core and one with foam, I'd pick foam core (and that's what I did). Total solid glass not an option for production cats. But I would not be afraid to own a balsa core boat as I understand the fragility of it when hitting things or boring holes thru it.

[a64pilot]

Last Summer returning from the Keys we overnighted in the Venice Marina, there was a guy there that was on a larger Lagoon Cat, sorry I don't know the size. Anyway apparently he had picked up a line in one prop and was coming in on one engine, and he said when he put it in reverse, the other prop came off, so he was in the Venice inlet which is big ripp raff rocks with no engines, he drifted in to the ripp raff and it did damage his bow. He was upset cause apparently the Sheriff boat was right there watching but wouldn't help.
Anyway from just me looking at it, it was apparent that the skin had been punctured, boat wasn't going to sink or anything, but I assumed water was getting into the core, but I didn't ask as he didn't seem to be the type that listened. I say that as he was trying to convince me that water makers were stupid, what you needed was an atmospheric condenser, you could make more water for less energy that way.
Plus if he could be believed, he had enough money to buy another one anyway

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by double u

those pics don't prove anything at all, pretty sure none of us knows the layups of the uncored bottoms...

I think this is a problem. Manufacturers unfortunately no longer typically publish details of the hull layup.

Having seen core samples from older cruising monohulls with a solid layup, a typical cruising boat of perhaps 45 feet will have a solid fibreglass thickness of perhaps an inch or an inch and a half at the bottom.

Such layups are easy to repair and there is a lot of material to grind away in the event of a grounding, rubbing against a rough dock in a storm, or if there are problems like osmosis. There is no chance of delamination or water absorption in the core.

The very thin skin thicknesses that are commonly seen in cored racing monohulls and some cruising cats are much less forgiving. Talk of only 3mm before the core is exposed, is of concern.

Weight is reduced with a cored construction, but I wonder if this is a sensible trade off, especially for a cruising monohull below the waterline where weight is less important. I realise on cats weight saving is more critical, but I still wonder if this is a wise choice especially when combined with polyester resin and an inexpensive layup.