Unusually built?

Absolutely.... ( the boss says I need to sell my last project before I spend any more money first) Which we are doing now...

In my communications with BR, he reviewed my photos and his comments indicated that it was not built following his instructions..

I have a little bit of experience with boats and repairs, and have done this kind of work for others. One thing I learned is that there are many ways to get things done. Some better than others. Taking things apart that have been around a long time, will teach you what works well and what does not.

In the case of this particular hull.. The build is unusual to me, and apparently the designer. That said, it has held up well (regarding its strength) to crossings and haul outs. ( have you ever seen a boat crush when hauled out? ferro cement!!!) The corrosion in side is from poorly thought out carpentry. Leaking windows alone would have drained into the bilge and been pumped out, but the 2x2 nailers held the water and allowed corrosion to happen. Poor maintenance with anodes allowed excessive electrolysis to occur. None of those issues is related to the hull construction, and are all fixable. In the photo, the horizontal 2x2 are wood and wedged in very tight. The one on the upper right has water trapped. The hull had these every 24 inches between every rib, transverse frames or what ever they call this type of construction. It may even be that this was their idea of accomplishing strength in addition to providing backing for all the wood work.




We will be buying the plans from BR, so we can have engineering help with these critical areas. In addition to that, having input from as many folks who build, or repair steel boats, and gaining insight from their experience of what works well and what does not, is prudent in my opinion.

Im one of those who does not need to touch the pan to know its hot. If one guy says it is, I question it, but if many say it is, I can free up brain space for other, possibly more important considerations. I know enough to know I do not know enough...

 

@JSL had a good point. This hull might have been welded up as a skin to transport somewhere else to finish out, but then maybe the owner cut corners, or one of the refit/rebuilds was done half-assed (or maybe overzelous?) and the original structure ripped out and never replaced properly?

 

I was thinking about that today... I looked pretty hard, and the transverse frames are more than tacked in, but certainly not welded a lot.. I guess "how much is enough" is just another piece of this puzzle..

The original owner I spoke with is in Greece sailing at the moment with another owner. He is one of 4 young Swedes who in 82, commissioned this thing... He really couldn't tell me anything specific regarding the build, but he said all 4 owners were still alive and in contact, and when they return from Greece he will have more information for me... hopefully

 

It is interesting to me that the designer would want full price for a set of plans that are essentially duplicates.

It would seem he would be at advantage to sell the plans at a discount with a no additional builds caveat.

Otherwise, the incentive to spend thousands on plans seems poor.

I'd try to work a deal, but I don't know industry practice; just common sense approaches.

This is a great thread and I can't contribute a thing, but if you buy plans; it entitles you to build another boat, which seems unneeded.

Further, if the build went away from design, plans are rather useless.

You'd be better off buying lunch for the original builders.

 

That's my bad.... I should have mentioned the plans are discounted. I think they are 1/3 the normal cost, and they come with a lot of references, plus he states unlimited consultation via phone or email or both.

I sort of jumped the gun with timing since I had planned to sell some property to finance the boat which unfortunately hasn't happened yet.. The boss ( god love her) is the only reason we can even afford to build this thing, and she says not a dime till the property sells...

And your right, since it wasn't built to the plans, the only value for me is the engineering for improvements.....

 

But different owner, (re) builder. Plans don't always (often?) pass with the boat at sale, esp. for an older one.

Depends, "Salmoneyes" is kind of in a hard position. He needs the information in the plans and the designer knows it. So it was nice of him to give a discount considering he is probably going to get pestered about it as much if not more than for a new build.

The plans tell you how far away from the original design the thing you have in front of you is and it tells you what is missing and how to replace them. Even if they aren't the exact dimensions specified.

If you can find them and they remember building that particular hull which isn't the same as when they sold it.

 

Pestering is right,,,, I have multiple emails with BR already. I think he is at the put up or shut up stage with me...

He sent me what I think is called the study plans, with line drawings, dimensions and such. From those, it appears they built it to spec, just apparently got away from the framing design.. And definitely her designed weight...

I accessed the lead ballast and calculated its weight and it is to the plans as well. The sail plan was to plan as is the location of main engine and tankage. They did add more fuel and water tankage than plans called for.

I am still baffled to the weight issue. By all rights I would expect it to be close to spec since everything is correct but the framing which is lighter than planned, unless they used heavier framing material, and the hull is thicker... The hull spec is 4mm and everywhere I check is 3/16 which without a mic could be 4mm... Can not see that alone causing the weight issue...

In demo, I did find I still had fluid in both water tanks (1200 lbs) , 3rd fuel tank I didn't know existed (350 lbs), the black water tank (100 lbs) and the hollow portions of keel were full of water (1000 lbs)... So there is 2600 lbs I can take off since I calculated it at full.

The hp rating on plans is 40 to 85 and she has a 130hp Mercedes OM 352, and she has a 700 lbs Kubota genset. Those possibly together add an extra 1000 lbs to her original designed weight...

I removed nearly 2000 pounds of teak in the demo, and nearly all the pine was saturated so maybe 500 there.

If I subtract that from the 42k that she rang out, that would put her at 37,000 lbs conservatively. That is still 10,000 lbs over her 26,970 designed displacement... Something is still amis....

 

These sorts of claims are nearly always from local paint reps more eager to sell the product than to give you the best solution. Metal filled epoxies have no sensible application in filling pits on boat hulls. They are for filling pits in bearing surfaces. They cannot add any significant strength to corroded steel plate without a full composite overlay.

Adhesion strength of any Amine cured Epoxy is no better than around 4% of the steel yield strength at best, and the modulus of elasticity of the filler is so low that regardless of what filler you put in you can never get an effective strength repair. At least not a significant enough increase to count since plate fails in buckling.

You'd be better advised to use normal proven epoxy paint systems and fill the pits with a softer more easily sanded epoxy resin and fiber filler. There are good reasons why there are established methods that work well.

 

Probably the weight reading , how did the freeboard compare with the drawings?

If the hull was built to its lines the waterline will tell you everything you need to know. Did you get a weight from a calibrated loadcell or from a hydraulic pressure ? The hydraulic pressure indicators usually over read the weight significantly. A load cell and a bottle jack will give you real weight and distribution.

 

We got the weight with boat on the trailer at the truck stop, then weight the truck and trailer after offload at same truck stop. I then added in know fluid weights, chain and anchor, and all rigging and sails.

Today I cleaned up some of the plating that I cut from keel... It was 6mm... I need to do some more checking at hull, but 6mm weighs 33% more than 4mm per my inquiry. That is what must be the cause of the bloated scale issues.

The boat sat 8 inches below designed water line which I checked from plans and was confirmed by the builder who said they pulled her and raised her paint line as well to compensate...

 

The keel shoe also might be a lot thicker than specified, that can be quite significant. If the keel components are built heavier than spec then you can recalculate and reduce the lead ballast accordingly.

 

Hi Salmoneyes
This thread may be helpful to you Steel plate thickness https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/steel-plate-thickness.6750/
The plans/study plans may be available to you from FineLine- they are suppliers(if still going) of BR plans prior to some date- pretty/like certain sure 1982 fits study set apparently includes bill of materials so you should be able to sort framing requirements from that Bruce Roberts 40 Boat Plan - Fine Line Boat Plans & Designs https://www.finelineboatplans.com/bruce-roberts-40-boat-plan
Generally I'd ignore the claptrap emanating from one source... some toxic diatribe pretty uncool given selling goodwill in days past.
The shell plating isn't outrageously thin for the size... one 100' vessel I work on has 4.7mm plate for most hull with some 6mm and 8mm in critical areas with 3 in the decks plus up for 22 knots in past though with good framework. Looks like she could do with some gussets and web floors plus some stringers. Nice style of vessel.
I've used Belzonia on machinery & it's done remarkably well particularly in patching scabbed repairs to a rare set of 4 intercoolers- never used it on hull repairs though best cure for rust is new steel & if still thick enough chloride decontamination.
All the best from Jeff
PS: It can be a lot worse

 

Thanks Jeff,,,,
I have some of those sent to me from BR... It was enough to confirm the build was off these plans.

<attachment removed; want to be careful not to violate designer's copyright>

 

Maybe I missed something but the photos originally posted looked like a single chine in steel. The 'Lines' (R 391) show radius chine which can be built in steel or aluminum. The materials choice might explain displacement variations between specs and the 'weighing'.

 

I wondered about that.. Thank You