Cheap Multis and Projects

[Howaya]

Craig,

Sandcrab is correct. If you sand down a non-essential surface just past the paint and you get a real odor, that is styrene releasing from the polyester resin. Otherwise it MAY be epoxy. It may also be resorcinol or coal tar, but polyester is obvious.

In general, the boat is a project but not a major one from what I see; that is, if the hulls, rig, and crossbeams are sound you would have a major head start over building from scratch. The pictures do not display any water stains around the windows. The rusty chainplates can be from milled steel or from stainless steel that was erroneously painted over and starved of oxygen. The winch at the aft end of the deck appears to raise and lower the outboard bracket; it is not meant to service a mizzen.

From the conversation you and I had by phone you could take it on with your skills if, as mentioned before, the essentials are solid. But you have to keep reality in mind. Money-wise, everything becomes twice what you think it will cost as you find new faults and as storage costs add up. What would a haul out and four months of storage cost? What if it turned into eight months? If you want to call me again, feel free to do so. I'll tell you a few tips for inspecting it more thoroughly.

Mike

[snort]

This one may fall under the "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" category. It's listed on sailboatlistings but I found more pictures on this link: http://www.latino-mercado.com/_boat/detail.php?lang=en§ion=boat&code=61_b_54086

That's a lot of boat for a little money (relatively speaking).

[snort]

Might have figured out the catch.....

This guy in his skivvies comes with the boat.

[Sand crab]

Howaya, The winch I was talking about is right against the salon bulkhead. It is on a dark blue support and right next to the trash can. It's hard to tell but I think that was for the other mast. It is directly in line with the dingy winch in Pic 3 but there's a better view in pic 4.

I like snorts boat except for the location. Not crazy about the guy.

[vRUN]

Originally Posted by snort

That's a lot of boat for a little money (relatively speaking).

(somewhat speculative):
Could well be she is sitting in Venezuela to "dry" ... (iow severe osmosis)
... the owner/builder (Wilfried Sell) spoke to his friend about a severe Osmosis problem with his boat ( in 2001 )
in german

[melissajenks]

Originally Posted by colemj

I can't give you an answer on whether it is worth pursuing with a surveyor. I do note that it appears to have a large, rotted hole in the transom, along with other cockpit worries, and it appears to be constructed of plywood. Plywood could cause you years of grief.

This attitude I find common in people prejudiced against catamarans, in favor of fiberglass monohulls. Yes, plywood can cause years of grief, but so can osmosis, deck recores, electrolysis, etc. Anything on a boat can cause years of grief. Isn't the advantage of a plywood (encased in epoxy) catamaran that one can be beached and repaired in the most primitive of areas?

I'm not saying that fiberglass isn't the most durable and reliable of materials. Clearly it is. But isn't an epoxy-over-wood boat a good option for the budget cruiser looking for a cheap project that can be repaired not necessarily quickly but with cheaper materials? Isn't that why people build boats from plywood in the first place?

I've been involved in a full deck recore for a fiberglass monohull that had a soft balsa and marine ply core, so I know how much work digging out soft wood is--but I also know it's possible and more labor-intensive than cost-intensive.

My long-winded point being that I believe that even a boat with some soft sections can be salvageable. Does anyone want to stand up for plywood?

[Howaya]

I'll offer some support. According to Chris White, author of The Cruising Multihull, plywood has many virtues. It retains more of its original strength after many flexing cycles than most other available materials, it is relatively light weight and inexpensive for that durable strength, it is more quiet when underway than a pure fiberglass laminate and, because it is readily available, replacing soft sections can be done easily in most parts of the civilized world.

The problem facing Craig is we do not know if the build in question was done properly or if, in fact, epoxy was used. If polyester was used there is a far greater chance of delamination. The hole in the port transom may have been the result of a singular event/impact and any subsequent deterioration simply the result of neglect over time - not necessarily a telltale indicator of the overall boat. If the damage is still isolated it will be an easy fix. But without an up-close inspection there are just too many unknowns.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by melissajenks

This attitude I find common in people prejudiced against catamarans, in favor of fiberglass monohulls. Yes, plywood can cause years of grief, but so can osmosis, deck recores, electrolysis, etc. Anything on a boat can cause years of grief. Isn't the advantage of a plywood (encased in epoxy) catamaran that one can be beached and repaired in the most primitive of areas?

I'm not saying that fiberglass isn't the most durable and reliable of materials. Clearly it is. But isn't an epoxy-over-wood boat a good option for the budget cruiser looking for a cheap project that can be repaired not necessarily quickly but with cheaper materials? Isn't that why people build boats from plywood in the first place?

I've been involved in a full deck recore for a fiberglass monohull that had a soft balsa and marine ply core, so I know how much work digging out soft wood is--but I also know it's possible and more labor-intensive than cost-intensive.

My long-winded point being that I believe that even a boat with some soft sections can be salvageable. Does anyone want to stand up for plywood?

In case you missed it, we own and are cruising full time on a catamaran, so don't think I am biased against them.

I also do not have any problem with cold-molded or epoxy/ply builds.

My comments on plywood represented the fact that once a plywood structure goes bad, it is gone. Period. Yes, you can totally rebuild the boat once again, but that is years of grief. So is replacing it piece by piece when sections fail.

And the particular boat in question looks to me like it has a lot of plywood problems, as evidenced by many issues noticeable in the cockpit, as well as a hole in the transom.

Pointing out these issues with a particular boat does not translate into me having problems with the build methodology in general.

Plywood has the unfortunate property of once water gets into it, it readily travels horizontally throughout the entire piece and delaminates. This isn't as true with balsa. I have repaired a lot of plywood structures and cored decks and have seen small leaks destroy an entire structure and delaminate a deck quite rapidly.

More importantly, the structural integrity of multihulls are very dependent upon the structural integrity of their components such as main beams, decking, bulkheads, etc. Much more so than monohulls. Having rotten, or unknown/unseen plywood components puts a multi in much more jeopardy than monos. Monos can be safely sailed within reason with completely rotted core and bad bulkheads. Multis with these issues will be folded into pieces in no time.

So, there is nothing wrong in general with plywood/epoxy builds. I suspect there is a lot wrong with that particular boat, however.

Mark

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Howaya

I'll offer some support. According to Chris White, author of The Cruising Multihull, plywood has many virtues. It retains more of its original strength after many flexing cycles than most other available materials, it is relatively light weight and inexpensive for that durable strength, it is more quiet when underway than a pure fiberglass laminate and, because it is readily available, replacing soft sections can be done easily in most parts of the civilized world.

The problem facing Craig is we do not know if the build in question was done properly or if, in fact, epoxy was used. If polyester was used there is a far greater chance of delamination. The hole in the port transom may have been the result of a singular event/impact and any subsequent deterioration simply the result of neglect over time - not necessarily a telltale indicator of the overall boat. If the damage is still isolated it will be an easy fix. But without an up-close inspection there are just too many unknowns.

Its still floating that says something about it and the inside doesnt look that bad,if nothing else it would make a great party barge..

[Sand crab]

It's cheap and a project.
36' Wood/Epoxy Catamaran---priced to sell!

[snort]

This might be worth a look, if someone's near Daytona Beach, FL:
1970 Iroquois catamaran 30 ft

[snort]

Another one, but even smaller:
Jarcat 6 meter cruising catamaran sailboat


Called a Jarcat...no doubt because, once in it, you feel like you're inside a jar.

[scape]

And then there's this: http://m.yachtworld.com/mobile/boats.../United-States

Condor trimaran 40', 20k$

Crazy deal, what's up with that?

Also someone explained to me that on windy days the stays get adjusted during a tack on that boat, interesting..

[CraigDC]

Aloha Folks!
I keep going back and forth on the 42'er here in Hawaii. It's more boat than I need/want, although only by 8', or so, but that's a big percentage.
It definitely looks like she used to be a ketch. Is there any problem leaving it the way it is and not replacing the mizzen?
She's not a bad looking boat. Certainly a better way to go than Moon Dog, no offense to anyone attached to Moon Dog.
The seller claims it has new sails and rigging down below.
Does the mast actually have to be dropped to replace the standing rigging, or could one replace it very carefully while standing? The mast has steps on it.
I suppose one is better off having a boat that is a bit too big, rather than a bit too small, especially with a family of four.
I'm going to try and get someone on Oahu to check it out for me before I fly over there.
I'm also checking out that one in Texas, Mike. I like that boat a lot more.
Anyone have any experience shipping a cat on a freighter? If I could get it to California, I wouldn't mind sailing it from there to here. Texas is a bit too far for a novice ocean sailor, especially through the Panama Canal.
Thanks!
Craig

[Sand crab]

There are companies that specialize in shipping boats. I guessing about $25,000.
Yes you can swap out the rigging by using a temp halyard attached to something firm but most boat yards have a light duty crane. Just pop off the mast with the rigging attached and then measure each piece while it's on the ground and fabricate exact length new ones. There are fittings like Sta-lok that are DIY friendly. They are more bucks but most think they are better.

Usually deleting a 2nd mast will adversely affect handling and performance. If that boat was designed properly for a twin mast setup then theoretically she should sail balanced. You shouldn't have to be constantly fighting the wheel. I would guess that the deletion of the mizzen would create lee helm which is too much sail area forward which would cause the boat to always want to turn downwind. This is hard on your steering linkages, rudders and especially the autopilot.
Lee helm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Weather helm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia