Lagoon bulkheads

[smj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, just like there are different houses, there are different boats.


Mass produced middle class suburban houses are much like mass produced inexpensive boats. And I'm not saying they're terrible -- there is a lot of efficiency in building that way, so the money saved may be worth the shorter life (both in case of house and boat) in some cases. Note that many cheap mass produced boats nevertheless have quite good structures. Not all of the mass market boat builders cut corners with the structure of the boat. Ultra-cheap Hansa seem to be pretty good structurally, as are Bavarias and Jeanneaus. Beneteau has good and bad models.



Then there are high end European boats which are really built like brickhouses, built to last a lifetime. Swan, Oyster (with a notable fail delivered to one Russian buyer), Discovery, Conquest, Sweden Yachts, Nauticat, etc.


Chalk and cheese compared to mass produced boats, but unfortunately with prices to match.

Exactly......

[wingssail]

The implicit idea that we should expect boats to become obsolete and deteriorate in 15-20 years and that detaching bulkheads should be viewed as normal and that we should then relegate the old hulls to the trash bin strikes me as wrong and exemplifies one of the sad things about human society.

The problem as I see it is not as a legal issue for Lagoon (although it might be a marketing disaster) but as a resources and energy issue for the human race. It's not just boats. We have extended the "20 years then junk it" practice to almost everything we build on this planet and we accept it.

It takes an immense amount of resources and energy to build a boat (even more when you include everything on and in it) and to just toss it into a landfill along with the old computers, cars, and old telephones is a huge waste. A huge waste which we really cannot sustain.

My view is that boats should not be considered a commodity which is produced then discarded. I have a sentimental view that a boat is a spiritual thing representing an immense amount of human creativity and natural resources. Lagoon may not have a legal responsibility to build boats which last for 100 years (or longer) but I think they have a moral responsibility to do so. I am glad that they see a business need to take responsibility for the flexing hulls and failed bulkheads, because they will certainly make sure that future builds don't have that problem which will be good for us all.

Now of only we could get the human race to realize that consumption is bad and that we should reuse the objects we spend so much on instead of tossing them out.

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

Really? Complete lack of support? One of my buddies has a 450 fly bridge and was hauled and repaired in Ft Lauderdale earlier this year on Lagoon's dime.

Shhhhhhh... please don't ruin the youtube narrative.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by wingssail

The implicit idea that we should expect boats to become obsolete and deteriorate in 15-20 years and that detaching bulkheads should be viewed as normal and that we should then relegate the old hulls to the trash bin strikes me as wrong and exemplifies one of the sad things about human society.

The problem as I see it is not as a legal issue for Lagoon (although it might be a marketing disaster) but as a resources and energy issue for the human race. It's not just boats. We have extended the "20 years then junk it" practice to almost everything we build on this planet and we accept it.

It takes an immense amount of resources and energy to build a boat (even more when you include everything on and in it) and to just toss it into a landfill along with the old computers, cars, and old telephones is a huge waste. A huge waste which we really cannot sustain.

My view is that boats should not be considered a commodity which is produced then discarded. I have a sentimental view that a boat is a spiritual thing representing an immense amount of human creativity and natural resources. Lagoon may not have a legal responsibility to build boats which last for 100 years (or longer) but I think they have a moral responsibility to do so. I am glad that they see a business need to take responsibility for the flexing hulls and failed bulkheads, because they will certainly make sure that future builds don't have that problem which will be good for us all.

Now of only we could get the human race to realize that consumption is bad and that we should reuse the objects we spend so much on instead of tossing them out.

Phew - I agree with you in the big picture. I really have a hard time with our disposable culture. This morning I put a microwave in the trash. 12 years old, parts not available, Consumer Reports says "don't fix - replace". It is just terrible - both for the ever expanding land fills and the new resources needed to make a new one.

But here is a tough question for you. I believe this is NOT true for the type of boater that hangs out on CF. But aren't most boats just fashionable toys for people with too much disposable incomes? It looks to me like fashion is the most important factor for a lot of buyers. It seems to me that if a designer lowers the cabin top by 2 inches and puts a different-shaped port on it, then the fashionista buyers want that and not the old design. And they are willing to dump their old, unfashionable boat for the sexy new design. And the market for a solid, durable ship is a lot smaller than the market for the latest design. And the builders know it. What is their incentive to make that Italian-designed beauty last 100 years?

I suspect it is one of those fundamental problems of a market economy that ignores indirect costs of decisions like this.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Phew - I agree with you in the big picture. I really have a hard time with our disposable culture. This morning I put a microwave in the trash. 12 years old, parts not available, Consumer Reports says "don't fix - replace". It is just terrible - both for the ever expanding land fills and the new resources needed to make a new one.

But here is a tough question for you. I believe this is NOT true for the type of boater that hangs out on CF. But aren't most boats just fashionable toys for people with too much disposable incomes? It looks to me like fashion is the most important factor for a lot of buyers. It seems to me that if a designer lowers the cabin top by 2 inches and puts a different-shaped port on it, then the fashionista buyers want that and not the old design. And they are willing to dump their old, unfashionable boat for the sexy new design. And the market for a solid, durable ship is a lot smaller than the market for the latest design. And the builders know it. What is their incentive to make that Italian-designed beauty last 100 years?

I suspect it is one of those fundamental problems of a market economy that ignores indirect costs of decisions like this.

My opinion is that new boats should be much more expensive which would encourage retention and reuse of older boats. Not popular I am sure.

What justification for higher prices? Make every manufacturer of any product responsible for a recycling or disposal plan and require that they place into a fund money to perform that recycling or disposal. This applies to all products and especially plastic.

"You make it, you must describe how it will be recycled or disposed of and provide the funds to do so"

[boatman61]

The house's value comes from the land it stands on, a permanant structure on a permanant base..
A boat has no base, so like an RV will depreciate over time..
As to boats not lasting 100yrs.. I've come across a few, one being a Falmouth fishing smack in Horta, Azores built in 1904 that had sailed to the Caribbean and back to the Azores by a mother and son.. below is one built in 1912 along with another from 10yrs earlier.
They don't build em like they used to..

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by wingssail

My opinion is that new boats should be much more expensive which would encourage retention and reuse of older boats. Not popular I am sure.

What justification for higher prices? Make every manufacturer of any product responsible for a recycling or disposal plan and require that they place into a fund money to perform that recycling or disposal. This applies to all products and especially plastic.

"You make it, you must describe how it will be recycled or disposed of and provide the funds to do so"

Hey wingssail
Ah yes - you would be gunning to be the least popular person in the entire business world! Most states can't even get a nickel deposit on a soda bottle and you want them to do it for yachts! But you are touching an inherent flaw of the market - gaming externalities. One of the best ways to make a fortune is to get someone to pay you money for something where you do not bear the full costs of what you are selling. Get someone else to pay that.

And everyone will howl "no one would ever pay for that!" Which is a wonderful little fairy tale, because of course it all does have to be paid for. It is only a question of "who?" In your hypothetical, it is typically the taxpayers who are left to foot the bill for the disposal of an abandoned boat. Like the dump at Pockwood Pond on Tortola, which is probably the home to dozens, if not hundreds of ruined boats from Irma.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by CatLove

Bulkheads and any other damage in an old boat is not an issue.
Legally those boats are out of their warranty period since a very long time.
Realistically if you owned a 20 y.o. car would you expect it to last forever? Would it be an "issue" if the body got rust or the engine needed a rebuild? Would anybody expect the car manufacturer to fix for free this old car? Even if it had been driven 200k miles?
The issue is the illusion that fiberglass+resin hulls last forever.

It was true back in the early stages of glass boats industry at least for some builders of bulletproof hulls but definitely this does not hold true for relatively modern design catamarans.

The same as cars, designs have evolved toward more performance, more features, shorter product lifecycles. Stuff has been optimized .
How many people expect their cars to be like in this old ad? How many people would expect Volvo to fix their vintage car for free ?

At 20 years, I would not expect a car to break in half. Engines can be replaced. It’s not really comparable unless the car is changing from its original shape and the frame is buckling.

Is this expected from all cats? Eventually I guess yes. Time and pressure right?

What about a 10 year old cat?

What about a 5 year old cat? It’s out of warranty.

What is the age for it to be ok for your vessel to settle into its new shape and bulkheads to Buckle?

[Fishzine]

Curious how many people who think we should be keeping boats longer look at boats >50 years old when they are boat shopping?

Don't forget the insurance problems that is hitting the older boat owners pretty regularly now. I worry every year when my 54 year old boat comes up for insurance renewal.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Fishzine

Curious how many people who think we should be keeping boats longer look at boats >50 years old when they are boat shopping?

Don't forget the insurance problems that is hitting the older boat owners pretty regularly now. I worry every year when my 54 year old boat comes up for insurance renewal.

Condition of vessel with supporting survey should sort out age issues.
Been on many 50 - + year old vessels that are far better than new production builds
Interesting to note that none of those 50 - + year olds I talk of were production builds.

[lestersails]

I must confess I have never understood catamarans from a structural stability standpoint. They seem to me inherently unsound. This from an owner of a (tiny) monohull. Now I must confess that I essentially always charter cats when I bareboat, which is at least once a year. I don't like them but my crew loves them. In the tepid conditions in which I charter (mostly Caribbean in good weather months) I don't think it matters. But for you more serious cruisers, I just don't get it.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by Fishzine

Curious how many people who think we should be keeping boats longer look at boats >50 years old when they are boat shopping?



Don't forget the insurance problems that is hitting the older boat owners pretty regularly now. I worry every year when my 54 year old boat comes up for insurance renewal.

50 year? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Most of these issues are coming within the first 5-10 years. But it’s only 10% of the vessels they say…

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by wingssail

My opinion is that new boats should be much more expensive which would encourage retention and reuse of older boats. Not popular I am sure.



What justification for higher prices? Make every manufacturer of any product responsible for a recycling or disposal plan and require that they place into a fund money to perform that recycling or disposal. This applies to all products and especially plastic.



"You make it, you must describe how it will be recycled or disposed of and provide the funds to do so"

How well does that work when the company just disappears?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Fishzine

Curious how many people who think we should be keeping boats longer look at boats >50 years old when they are boat shopping?

Don't forget the insurance problems that is hitting the older boat owners pretty regularly now. I worry every year when my 54 year old boat comes up for insurance renewal.

My boat is 43 years old right now. I'm hoping people will consider a 50 year old boat around the time when I might be selling mine.

OK, what if new boats cost so damn much that it was worth it to totally refurbish 50 year old boats? A lot of these old boats sail quite well. I think we'd be better off refurbishing old ones and making them perfect than trashing them and building new ones (better for the planet, that is).

But we'd need to make them good enough to last that long.

[malbert73]

The problem with the argument that boat builders don’t have an incentive to build 50 year yachts is that how do you build a hull that won’t last indefinitely yet will hold up structurally. Seems like Lagoon fell on wrong side of that to save what likely would be <3-5K upfront before interior is completed, to install “bulletproof” bulkheads.

FWIW my boat is 35 years old. Every single bulkhead, shelf, settee, compartment is tabbed to hull. So as long as I keep up systems, cosmetics, should be fine