Rudder Failures

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

With respect to AVB3, capsize screening ratio, which considers only displacement and beam, is meaningless when comparing boats of different types. An Open 60 has a much "worse" capsize screening ratio than a Hunter. This metric does not consider CG or draft, so grossly understates the stability of modern boats with bulb keels and overstates the stability of older designs.

To understand something about stability, you need to do some actual work on stability calculations, starting with AVS.

There is no question that purpose built and 'modern' boats have other factors that influence usability. For many reasons that have been discussed in many of these threads, I would be avoiding most 'modern' boats. Most are built for a different market than many of the 'older' boats. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just is a reality. Look at the Swan that was shown earlier.

I doubt if the Hunter 49 has less stability than average "blue water boats", particularly older longer keel shallower draft ones, whatver the capsize screening ratio says.

It actually comes out quite well on that ratio. But it is only one factor, albeit one that is important in the boats I would consider.

Stability -- a big challenge for mobo designers -- is not so hard for boats with ballasted keels, and is not really a measure of a good boat these days. Deep bulb keels have a huge effect on CG and dramatically increase stability, compared to older designs. The bigger question for boats like Hunters is structural integrity. Not stability.

Agreed.

The capsize screening ratio was introduced after the Fastnet disaster, to try to catch some cases of boats which had such perverted designs, due to RORC classes, that stability was beginning to suffer despite the inherent advantages of boats with ballasted keels. It was never intended as an objective measure of stability -- hence it is only called "screening ratio".

Yet there are many boats with traditional keels that the screening ratio is indicative. Again, only one factor, but not one I would ignore.

Originally Posted by Polux

Again the capsize ratio story!!!! There is a long thread about it. That means nothing regarding a modern type of boat. It may have said something about 40 year old cruisers, for boats similarly design, with the same draft and ballast.
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ios-71329.html

See my comments to Dockhead above. For many reasons, I would not consider most of the modern designs. And the remainder that I would are probably out of reach.

Regardless, very few here would argue stability is not important. Very few would argue that rigging is not imperative, and chainplates in particular are important. Very few would argue (OK.. some will) that liners are not ideal for boats. Very few would argue that although very desirable when coastal cruising, large cockpits can be a detriment in bluewater unless other design features allow for quick water egress. Very few would argue that structural elements such as bulkheads need to be robust, and properly installed.

Many of the 'modern' boats fail on these issues as has been significantly laid out in posts on this thread.

As many have pointed out, most of those 'modern' boats can do quite well within the markets they are addressing. But let's not make them more than they are. That is not denigrating them, that is just being realistic. They serve their market, are stunning to gorgeous inside and are good enough to cross oceans in reasonable wx conditions. And a great sailor can do that in worse conditions, which we all acknowledge.

Now, back to that Plexus debate.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

If you're that disinclined to actually use the search feature, you can at least look back in this thread to where CPA and I discussed the two Blue Pearl threads in question.

I think I've brought plenty of evidence into this and the other thread to back up my questions/arguments.

So, yes, I expect others to do the same. I'm certainly not going to do it for them...not even you.

Actually I was very interested in Blue Pearls saga and followed it closely. Watching that video sent chills down my spine. I have been in sea conditions like that many times but I never thought of the boat coming apart. I do know that the Cyclades 50 was considered by the local surveyors as extremely lightly built and I don't know how much of that type of construction was in the B50 but NeilPride has examples of very poor construction on sister ships where things are glassed on one side and not the other and varnished bulkheads are glued making the joint as good as the layer of varnish. When I see this kind of stuff going on and I read about how quality is job one and B is the leader etc. etc. it gives me no confidence in the product.

Now you step up to the podium and start making statements about evidence that suggests that Blue Pearl had unreported damage that was not properly repaired etc. etc. and I call BS because from all the reading I did everything was speculation and the boat is at the bottom of the sea so I still wonder if you really know what the word evidence really means.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
Oil-canning is the natural result of light uncored construction. Strong balsa core construction is too expensive for this type of boat; nor can you afford to build the massive solid FRP construction of Oysters or Nordhavens. You can have strong, light, or cheap - choose any two. High production boats choose light and cheap. Oysters choose strong while being neither light nor cheap. I prefer fully balsa cored hulls, which is what you find on almost all high end boats - strong and light but not cheap. ....
..

I agree with all except this. Balsa core was what was used on top boats but not anymore due to the tendency to absorb water. The best seems to be corecell but even other cores like Airex are more expensive than balsa that is the cheapest option. See price chart:
Core Comparison Chart

Recently when the Dehler 41 come to the market they offered a "cheap" version with balsa core and some vinylester but mostly with polyester resins and an expensive one all with epoxy resins and a synthetic core (I cannot remember if Corecell, Airex or another cross linked foam).

An interesting article:
http://www.fram.nl/faq/how/SP_CoreCell_comp.pdf

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

As many have pointed out, most of those 'modern' boats can do quite well within the markets they are addressing. But let's not make them more than they are. That is not denigrating them, that is just being realistic.

That's fine, but let's not make them less than they are either. That's not hyping them, that is just being realistic.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

.. British surveyor when we bought our recent boat and he said that for the first time in his career he was surveying boats with "limited" lifespans.

So there may be something to what these two gentlemen have to say, certainly both having a much larger base of knowledge than myself I just listened.

Yes I believe this is true even if many don't know it. Regarding rudders, masts, shrouds, sail drive seal, seacocks, chainplates and highly stressed structural parts of the hull, the engine and about everything. Everything has a life span but almost all act if the boats were eternal and nothing needed to be changed before it breaks. When you have the boat insured if many of those materials were not substituted at the right intervals (what we could call an adequate maintenance)and the boat sunk due to a failure of a system that should already be changed or revised, they will not pay anything.

For sure modern boats, like modern cars are made to last less than old ones and the main reason is the fastest obsolescence of the systems and designs: Who would have to maintain a 30 year old car with a very expensive maintenance and a very poor performance, compared with new ones?

Like old cars the same is happening with old boats: piles of them almost for free and nobody wants them. Like on the cars their normal lifespan will be dictated more by obsolescence and costs of maintenance than for age.

Regarding that case with the First 40.7 losing the keel. I had raised the same hypothesis of your friend Surveyor, if that was the case it is an unacceptably low duration for the material resistance and something has to be reviewed on the RCD increasing dramatically the cycle live mandatory on that area.

Anyway an investigation is needed and one of the First that lost the keel was recovered. Anyway even if not, it will be easy to run mandatory tests on all other First 40.7 to find out what is the problem and if more boats reveal any fragility.

When that happen to a Bavaria cruiser racer (Match 40) it was the company that voluntarily performed those tests and found out that there was several boats that even if not having lost the keel had fragility on that area and trough dealers made a recall and repaired/beefed all boats of that model. Beneteau should do the same to see if there is a problem in several boats or if those two had suffered hard groundings and had the keel structure damaged.

It is on Beneteau best interest to do this because if there is a problem regarding the Firts 40.7 in what concerns stress fatigue, that occurs in a very short time, more 40,7 will have problems rapidly. If that does not happen after some years we can conclude that was not the problem but it is a big risk for Beneteau to wait for see what happens because the consequences of more boats losing the keels would be devastating for the company.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I do know that the Cyclades 50 was considered by the local surveyors as extremely lightly built and I don't know how much of that type of construction was in the B50 but NeilPride has examples of very poor construction on sister ships where things are glassed on one side and not the other and varnished bulkheads are glued making the joint as good as the layer of varnish. When I see this kind of stuff going on and I read about how quality is job one and B is the leader etc. etc. it gives me no confidence in the product.

If you read through the reports I've linked to, you'll see that the varnish is not the issue you think it is when it comes to Plexus. It is incorrect to say that "the joint [is] as good as the layer of varnish".

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Actually I was very interested in Blue Pearls saga and followed it closely. Watching that video sent chills down my spine. I have been in sea conditions like that many times but I never thought of the boat coming apart. Now you step up to the podium and start making statements about evidence that suggests that Blue Pearl had unreported damage that was not properly repaired etc. etc. and I call BS because from all the reading I did everything was speculation and the boat is at the bottom of the sea so I still wonder if you really know what the word evidence really means.

Where did I say there was "unreported damage" in the case of the Blue Pearl? I just did a search of this thread and I certainly can't find where I said that. Can you point me to it?

I don't really care if you disagree with everything I post. But you at least need to keep the facts at least somewhat straight in your arguments.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes I believe this is true even if many don't know it. Regarding rudders, masts, shrouds, sail drive seal, seacocks, chainplates and highly stressed structural parts of the hull, the engine and about everything. Everything has a life span but almost all act if the boats were eternal and nothing needed to be changed before it breaks. When you have the boat insured if many of those materials were not substituted at the right intervals (what we could call an adequate maintenance)and the boat sunk due to a failure of a system that should already be changed or revised, they will not pay anything.

For sure modern boats, like modern cars are made to last less than old ones and the main reason is the fastest obsolescence of the systems and designs: Who would have to maintain a 30 year old car with a very expensive maintenance and a very poor performance, compared with new ones?

Like old cars the same is happening with old boats: piles of them almost for free and nobody wants them. Like on the cars their normal lifespan will be dictated more by obsolescence and costs of maintenance than for age.

Regarding that case with the First 40.7 losing the keel. I had raised the same hypothesis of your friend Surveyor, if that was the case it is an unacceptably low duration for the material resistance and something has to be reviewed on the RCD increasing dramatically the cycle live mandatory on that area.

Anyway an investigation is needed and one of the First that lost the keel was recovered. Anyway even if not, it will be easy to run mandatory tests on all other First 40.7 to find out what is the problem and if more boats reveal any fragility.

When that happen to a Bavaria cruiser racer (Match 40) it was the company that voluntarily performed those tests and found out that there was several boats that even if not having lost the keel had fragility on that area and trough dealers made a recall and repaired/beefed all boats of that model. Beneteau should do the same to see if there is a problem in several boats or if those two had suffered hard groundings and had the keel structure damaged.

It is on Beneteau best interest to do this because if there is a problem regarding the Firts 40.7 in what concerns stress fatigue, that occurs in a very short time, more 40,7 will have problems rapidly. If that does not happen after some years we can conclude that was not the problem but it is a big risk for Beneteau to wait for see what happens because the consequences of more boats losing the keels would be devastating for the company.

Well I guess we live in a throw away society and its pretty much everywhere, as in the great American comic strip from my youth POGO once said "I have seen the enemy and he is us".

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

There is no question that purpose built and 'modern' boats have other factors that influence usability. For many reasons that have been discussed in many of these threads, I would be avoiding most 'modern' boats. Most are built for a different market than many of the 'older' boats. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just is a reality. Look at the Swan that was shown earlier.
...
As many have pointed out, most of those 'modern' boats can do quite well within the markets they are addressing. But let's not make them more than they are. That is not denigrating them, that is just being realistic. They serve their market, are stunning to gorgeous inside and are good enough to cross oceans in reasonable wx conditions. And a great sailor can do that in worse conditions, which we all acknowledge.

I know that the boat market in US is small and for each model you have available on the US you have 20, probably more in Europe, but the market offers many types of sailing boats in fact all significant types of sailingboats a sailor could want. That is their business: offering what sailors want and there are many different types of sailors. Each significant type of sailor has some small shipyard working to satisfy them. That's how they survive and make money occupying all niches of a market.

Unless the type of boat you see fit for you is so particular that no significant number of sailors want it, you will find a production boat that satisfies you and the sailors with the same needs...unless that what you want is a design from 30 year ago and in that case you will not find it because there is a different design that can do all the same the type of boat you like does, but better. You will not find a sufficient number of sailors wanting an old design that does the same as a new one, but worse, to constitute a niche market. If that was the case the shipyards that stick to old designed boats would have survived and that's not generally the case.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Well I guess we live in a throw away society and its pretty much everywhere, as in the great American comic strip from my youth POGO once said "I have seen the enemy and he is us".

That's a way of seeing it, the other and more accurate to explain that "trow away society" is that never as before the evolution of systems, materials and techniques was so fast and that creates increasingly fast obsolescent objects: Do you use the mobile phone you had 5 years ago? Do you use the computer you had 10 years ago? Do you have the car you had 20 years ago? and so on. Progress has its price and the big problem in what regards boats is to know what to do with them. Like on the cars you will have to create a system to recycle them and somebody has to pay for it, their owners.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

If you read through the reports I've linked to, you'll see that the varnish is not the issue you think it is when it comes to Plexus. It is incorrect to say that "the joint [is] as good as the layer of varnish".



Where did I say there was "unreported damage" in the case of the Blue Pearl? I just did a search of this thread and I certainly can't find where I said that. Can you point me to it?

I don't really care if you disagree with everything I post. But you at least need to keep the facts at least somewhat straight in your arguments.

Ok put me straight, all I read was that the present owner had lost his rudder at sea and there was a bunch of speculation that it had been damaged prior and not repaired properly although the owner suggested otherwise and said that the boat had been properly surveyed and there was no damage and the rudder had simply failed. Then if I remember correctly he was at sea with his crew and the rear bulkhead gave away, the same bulkhead NeilPride showed was poorly installed on a B50 he was working on. The boat sunk, the crew was saved. So tell me what is fact and what is speculation? I saw no evidence in anyone's reports or posts, mostly guys with Benni's that never wanted to admit to themselves that maybe they didn't own all the boat they had originally thought(normal) I saw nothing from a certified surveyor, a saw nothing from a boat builder that had inspected the boat. I did see that horrible video showing the boat come apart but as far as evidence that was it in a bottle. So what do you know as a "fact" that I don't about this particular boat?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Ok put me straight, all I read was that the present owner had lost his rudder at sea and there was a bunch of speculation that it had been damaged prior and not repaired properly although the owner suggested otherwise and said that the boat had been properly surveyed and there was no damage and the rudder had simply failed. Then if I remember correctly he was at sea with his crew and the rear bulkhead gave away, the same bulkhead NeilPride showed was poorly installed on a B50 he was working on. The boat sunk, the crew was saved. So tell me what is fact and what is speculation? I saw no evidence in anyone's reports or posts, mostly guys with Benni's that never wanted to admit to themselves that maybe they didn't own all the boat they had originally thought(normal) I saw nothing from a certified surveyor, a saw nothing from a boat builder that had inspected the boat. I did see that horrible video showing the boat come apart but as far as evidence that was it in a bottle. So what do you know as a "fact" that I don't about this particular boat?

Good lord, man. You seem to be very high maintenance. Like I said - go read the threads...especially the one by the owner. Also look at the owner's other thread about the Rudder Nightmare at Sea. And pay attention to the details.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I agree with all except this. Balsa core was what was used on top boats but not anymore due to the tendency to absorb water. The best seems to be corecell but even other cores like Airex are more expensive than balsa that is the cheapest option. See price chart:
Core Comparison Chart

Recently when the Dehler 41 come to the market they offered a "cheap" version with balsa core and some vinylester but mostly with polyester resins and an expensive one all with epoxy resins and a synthetic core (I cannot remember if Corecell, Airex or another cross linked foam).

An interesting article:
http://www.fram.nl/faq/how/SP_CoreCell_comp.pdf

Instead of reading the literature of makers of foam cores, you should read what is put out by companies who sell all kinds of different cores, for example: http://www.compositesone.com/wp-cont...rochure_v6.pdf

No foam core comes even close to the strength of balsa, which has a specific strength (UTS per unit of weight) greater than titanium. Of course, that strength is not needed for all applications, so for some things, foam is better. But where strength and stiffness is needed, balsa is the thing, if you can afford the processes required to make it sufficiently waterproof.

Foams are getting better and better, but the purpose for using them is that they are cheaper and easier to work with, and lighter, not for strength. In order to be sure to prevent water absorption, balsa has to be vacuum infused, which is an expensive, tedious process, by SCRIMP or similar. Non-infused balsa cores are much cheaper, but have not been used for a decade or more AFAIK due to the problems that Minaret likes to talk about. Dehler might be an exception; I don't know.

Open 60's use balsa in high stress areas, for example, and most high end cruising boats have hulls fully cored with infused balsa. Balsa is also the predominant core material for wind turbine blades, which are very highly stressed, as well as in F1 cars and jet aircraft.

There are some new core materials which are getting close to the mechanical properties of balsa, but they are not foams, and they haven't made it to boats yet: Carbon fiber epoxy honeycombs mimic performance of balsa : CompositesWorld

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

That's a way of seeing it, the other and more accurate to explain that "trow away society" is that never as before the evolution of systems, materials and techniques was so fast and that creates increasingly fast obsolescent objects: Do you use the mobile phone you had 5 years ago? Do you use the computer you had 10 years ago? Do you have the car you had 20 years ago? and so on. Progress has its price and the big problem in what regards boats is to know what to do with them. Like on the cars you will have to create a system to recycle them and somebody has to pay for it, their owners.

Polux I'm getting a bit disappointed, I'm starting to agree with you, LOL. Yes, recycling boats is going to be quite the opportunity if someone can figure out how to make money on the end product. Many people can no longer afford keeping these boats in marinas and give away boats are becoming more common. We all know how expensive it is to keep a boat maintained so it is indeed an issue. I've always believed when buying a used boat to buy one with a following as it really helps the day you want to sell. Today's manufacturers know that the best competition for a sale is the boat they built 2 years ago so they are constantly putting out new models just like the car business. There job is to dissatisfy you and cause you to want to own the new boat. That means as a marketer you want to be changing your product constantly because if they like what you have they can only get it from you because its not available on the used market. Its one of the reasons that you can easily spot boats a few years old, its like the rings in a tree, we instantly know how old it is and that means the builders have done their job well.
Think about it Polux, your a sailing junkie, you love the latest and fastest boats but other than race boats the cruising boats are still limited to waterline length speeds for the most part, yes the odd cruiser pushes their boat and surfs a bit but if you are cruising offshore the more you push the boat the more it costs you at refit so you learn to operate within reasonable margins. So you cross an ocean in 15 days and it takes me 17 or even 18 days and then we daysail around the islands for a year or two before we cross another ocean. How important is that little bit of extra speed when we are talking about cost of ownership? The fellows on this site that buy an older well built boat built before we knew just how light we could really build them are not entirely stupid. There are some quite old used boats that have such a following that even in a **** market they get snapped up if they have been really well maintained. The example I gave you of an old S&S Swan is a good example, its likely that it will be one of the last ones lined up for the fiberglass munching machine.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Instead of reading the literature of makers of foam cores, you should read what is put out by companies who sell all kinds of different cores, for example: http://www.compositesone.com/wp-cont...rochure_v6.pdf

No foam core comes even close to the strength of balsa, which has a specific strength (UTS per unit of weight) greater than titanium. Of course, that strength is not needed for all applications, so for some things, foam is better. But where strength and stiffness is needed, balsa is the thing, if you can afford the processes required to make it sufficiently waterproof.

Foams are getting better and better, but the purpose for using them is that they are cheaper and easier to work with, and lighter, not for strength. In order to be sure to prevent water absorption, balsa has to be vacuum infused, which is an expensive, tedious process, by SCRIMP or similar. Non-infused balsa cores are much cheaper, but have not been used for a decade or more AFAIK due to the problems that Minaret likes to talk about. Dehler might be an exception; I don't know.

Open 60's use balsa in high stress areas, for example, and most high end cruising boats have hulls fully cored with infused balsa. Balsa is also the predominant core material for wind turbine blades, which are very highly stressed, as well as in F1 cars and jet aircraft.

There are some new core materials which are getting close to the mechanical properties of balsa, but they are not foams, and they haven't made it to boats yet: Carbon fiber epoxy honeycombs mimic performance of balsa : CompositesWorld

I don't know what to say to you and don't want to be rude but Open 60's use carbon and nomex. Go to the sites of top boat builders, specially the ones that are more advanced on the use of top materials and you are going to see you are not right and many passed from balsa, that is cheaper, to airex, corecell and other similar materials. Please search before you reply. Has I have explained to you the problem with balsa is only in marine use and has to do with water absorption and delamination.

For instance Halberg Rassy that was on of the first conservative brands to used cored hulls had problems with the balsa core in several boats needing expensive repairs. They only sorted it out when they passed to foam with closed cells. They say:

"Compared to the single skin hulls in the old days, today's hulls are insulated, which means a superior torsional stiffness of the hull. The material used is a PVC foam called Divinycell. It is fitted when the laminate is still wet, and then covered by laminate. The Divinycell is a superior material for a cruising boat, compared to balsa. The PVC foam has closed cells, which means that the material does not absorb water. The Divinycell will finally be covered with more laminate."

How a Hallberg-Rassy hull is built

As I have already said to you, why the hell would be Dehler using the better balsa core on its cheap versions and the worse foam core on its hugely more expensive epoxy versions (R )?

Here you have the hull specifications for the cheapest standard version:

"GRP hand laid sandwich construction with end grain balsa core for strength and isolation; Supporting bulkheads bonded to the hull; Construction of hydrolyses proofed polyester resin, vinylester in first layer and roving fabrics, balsa wood; core and unidirectional fabrics; Floor beams laminate into the hull to distribute keel and rig forces along the laminate construction "
https://www.dehler.com/media/documen...-38-274415.pdf

and the specification for the R version. They give the R denomination but it is not a racing boat, just a faster and better built boat, obviously considerably more expensive:

"The hull is built using vacuum consolidated hand lay-ups. The laminated construction consists out epoxy resin, multidirectional fabrics and foam core as sandwich material. Internally the laminate is finished off with a topcoat.
A sandwich construction with predominantly foam core and end grain balsa wood in certain areas provides additional strength and stiffness. Integrated aluminium reinforcements are laminated-in for all deck fittings. T
..The floor beams are hand, laminated into the hull, distribute the keel and rig forces evenly along the bottom structure. "
Schwern-Yachten: News

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux I'm getting a bit disappointed, I'm starting to agree with you, LOL. Yes, recycling boats is going to be quite the opportunity if someone can figure out how to make money on the end product. Many people can no longer afford keeping these boats in marinas and give away boats are becoming more common. We all know how expensive it is to keep a boat maintained so it is indeed an issue. I've always believed when buying a used boat to buy one with a following as it really helps the day you want to sell. Today's manufacturers know that the best competition for a sale is the boat they built 2 years ago so they are constantly putting out new models just like the car business. There job is to dissatisfy you and cause you to want to own the new boat. That means as a marketer you want to be changing your product constantly because if they like what you have they can only get it from you because its not available on the used market. Its one of the reasons that you can easily spot boats a few years old, its like the rings in a tree, we instantly know how old it is and that means the builders have done their job well.
Think about it Polux, your a sailing junkie, you love the latest and fastest boats but other than race boats the cruising boats are still limited to waterline length speeds for the most part, yes the odd cruiser pushes their boat and surfs a bit but if you are cruising offshore the more you push the boat the more it costs you at refit so you learn to operate within reasonable margins. So you cross an ocean in 15 days and it takes me 17 or even 18 days and then we daysail around the islands for a year or two before we cross another ocean. How important is that little bit of extra speed when we are talking about cost of ownership? The fellows on this site that buy an older well built boat built before we knew just how light we could really build them are not entirely stupid. There are some quite old used boats that have such a following that even in a **** market they get snapped up if they have been really well maintained. The example I gave you of an old S&S Swan is a good example, its likely that it will be one of the last ones lined up for the fiberglass munching machine.

Thats is all irrelevant. I am not talking about particular cases. As on cars the best and more advanced cars of each generation are preserved and in many cases they have a value superior to new cars. We are talking about o,ooo1% of all the cars, and it will happen the same with the boats. They will be ditched by the same reason cars are, obsolescence and because it is cheaper to buy a better used boat then recover a worse older boat. I am talking in generic therms.

Besides, as I was saying it is already happening, lots of boats nobody want and that is already an ecologic problem:

"Nearly 5,000 recreational boats are retired and disposed of every year in Norway- either sunk to the bottom of the sea or burned in a bonfire. Now, researchers have developed a new method for recycling these vessels."
Shipwrecks no more: Recycling old boats -- ScienceDaily

"The company, a Tampa, Fla.-based fiberglass waste recycling business, said in a news release that it has identified more than 100 acres of land in west central Florida for a fiberglass boat recycling operation. The property's owner has agreed to make the land available in conjunction with a third entity equipped with barges and other equipment required to raise the boats. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that 9,000 boats lie in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico....American Fiber processes fiberglass and recycles it into new products. Florida, like many states, faces numerous boats left abandoned on water and land. Many states have funds specifically for abandoned boat programs."

American Fiber Nears Abandoned Boat Recycling Venture | Plastics content from Waste360

Maybe I notice that more than you because in Europe we like more modern boats, buy more new ones and ditch old ones earlier. If you go to Greece or Turkey, as you have been and go to any port or marina, you will see lots of abandoned boats, or boats just getting older with old signs of "to sell", boats that nobody wants.