keel hull joint image

[George DuBose]

Poorly botched repair job on the hull? Just looks like a lot of bottom paint waiting for a peel and spackle. Maintenance of the underwater portion of a boat is maintaining a system of barrier and antifouling. Sometimes one just has to take a deep breath and redo the bottom. If the interior and rest of the ship's systems are well-maintained, it could be that the bottom is due for a redo.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by George DuBose

Poorly botched repair job on the hull? Just looks like a lot of bottom paint waiting for a peel and spackle. Maintenance of the underwater portion of a boat is maintaining a system of barrier and antifouling. Sometimes one just has to take a deep breath and redo the bottom. If the interior and rest of the ship's systems are well-maintained, it could be that the bottom is due for a redo.

I agree, this is just years of antifoul paint building up and now coming off. Solution, strip it all off, epoxy the keel, fill the seem between the keel and hull, slap some more paint on and go sailing.

Dealing with rust is an annual event for us, no need to get excited or run away.

Pete

[barnakiel]

I too believe the line can be a glass tape applied some time back to hide the defect.

Hard to say how much trouble there is without full inspection. Maybe little, maybe (given the cast iron slab) quite a lot?

Attaching a keel at 90 degrees to a bendy boat always results in the same set of problems, eh?

Get the surveyor. Possibly the damage is not all that big and the boat is still safe to use for less demanding adventures inshore.

Cheers,
b.

[blueazimuth]

At this stage, there is no reason to run from this boat - it's not your boat. Your question is about iron keels of this design and condition.

Fiberglass boats with bolt on iron keels have been around for many years. Today, a bolt on iron keel boat is the most common design and build. From a builder's point of view, it's relatively cheap and easy to build.

If I were to putter around on weekends, with a week or two here and there, and used the boat sensibly for inshore work, I would have no problem with today's modern boats. They look attractive, they sail very well and have impressive interiors.

However, I would not consider taking such a modern boat offshore - there is history of keel failures, and loss off life, and on fairly new boats. From what I have heard, these catastrophic keel failures were not caused by grounding or lack of maintenance.
They were more likely caused by material and / or workmanship failure coupled, perhaps, with design.

Having said that, many modern boats of this design have made successful offshore passages. However, that is not what a large majority of these boats were designed for: they were designed for the charter trade, where such boats are not taken offshore, except when being delivered.

The fact is that most owners of this modern design do not plan to take their boat around the world, so why build a boat to that standard?

Going back to the original question - would I, out of hand, reject an older boat of this design, especially this one? No. And looking at the photo of this particular boat, would I agree with the owner? Yes. This appears no more than minor rust, common to these boats, and was not caused by damage. To sand, fill and paint the hull of this 28 year old boat, would not be an unreasonable course of action. I think that's what a surveyor would probably tell you.

Let's go further. This comes down to money, and not only sales price.
If the interior of this boat is good, and the engine, rigging, and sails do not need replacing any time soon, and there are no deck leaks, and there are no salt crystals nor salt water in the bilge, and the electronics, refrigeration and other equipment is reasonably modern, and fully functional, (ie the boat can be sailed, as is, and doesn't need serious money and time to be dumped into it), I would not reject this boat, for inshore sailing, based on keel design or keel condition.

I would further suggest that, after pulling the keel bolts, and based more on seamanship skills than keel design, this boat could be considered for sensible offshore work.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by sandrunner

I try to sort out biases people have about design (not my question per se). I'm having a survey done and see what information/recommendation they provide. The primarily question that I'm trying to figure out between the survey and those who perhaps have seen very similar examples/worked on them is does it look like something that necessitates dropping the keel to investigate or just cosmetic and typical of the design, cast iron, and age?

OK, I don't have keel bolts on my current boat, but I have spent a good deal of time around boats and yards and I have seen some pretty ugly looking keel bolts that looked ok on top but not where they came out of the keel. (is that like saying I am not a doctor but I play one on tv?) At 28 years old I'd certainly want to get a really good look at the keel bolts. Rust on keels like this pretty much comes with the territory with iron keels. And can you confirm, is this a steel hull? What kind of boat is this? It sure looks like the flaking is not just bottom paint from the shot I see.

[sandrunner]

Survey done... Steel hull?? No... I don't know of any steel hulls with bolt on iron keels, but I could be wrong too


So the hull is solid, no signs of damage/repairs, moisture reading very consistent (good). The area right around the keel (and the rudder) has increased moisture readings, but solid. Keel bolt are have rusty heads along with 3/6 chain plate bolts.

[kenbo]

I think you've told me enough to where I'd want to drop the keel if you want to go forward with the purchase. Moisture around the keel could be seeping in from the keel bolt holes and you will want to descale the top of the keel and seal it too.

[sandrunner]

agreed - if the deal is struck, the keel is coming off and being rebedded with new bolts (amongst many other projects). Thanks all for thoughts/input, much appreciated.

[dakno]

Now that you know what you are looking at the vessel should be priced with the cost of dropping , epoxying, replacement of keelboats, etc. The fact that the current owner is showing the boat "as is" and not even doing a cosmetic restoration to hide the uglies says to me that he wants it to be gone. Make a offer based on the worst case, ie.. keel bolts breaking off in the keel and having to be drilled out.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by sandrunner

Survey done... Steel hull?? No... I don't know of any steel hulls with bolt on iron keels, but I could be wrong too


So the hull is solid, no signs of damage/repairs, moisture reading very consistent (good). The area right around the keel (and the rudder) has increased moisture readings, but solid. Keel bolt are have rusty heads along with 3/6 chain plate bolts.

Moisture metering over multiple layers of anti-fouling paint in very poor condition will mostly likely be very inaccurate.

Sorry, I tried to be politic but the truth is the meter readings will be absolute BS.

[Pauls]

Thanks for the explanation, Minaret. Makes perfect sense.

Keels are virtually never bolted onto steel hulls. Why would you? Steel hulls are built with steel keels welded to the bottom. The hollow keels are filled with ballast.

[Perna]

Originally Posted by minaret

Sure it can, it just requires much, much more maintenance to keep it that way. Which doesn't address my beef with an iron keel, which is that after having repaired many hundreds of broken boats, I wouldn't own one based strictly on the iron keels proclivity for transferring very high loads to internal structural members. Seen a great many lead keels after a severe hard grounding with only a big gouge in the lead and no other damage found after much inspection, including dropping the keel. Also seen far too many cases of iron keels with fairly light grounding ending with zero damage to the keel or bolts, but severe damage to internal structural members, engine alignment, and the hull itself. A big lump of lead is extremely effective at soaking up damage without transferring load, cast iron not so much. You might as well bolt a crow bar to the bottom of the boat. The longer the iron keel, the greater the lever arm, the more severe the effect. Hence the lack of a stub is bad. A recess makes this even worse; now you've inserted the crow bar into the hull!

Just because many modern boats are built like this doesn't make it any less true. It's common sense, really. A lead keel is like an airbag for your boat. It has many advantages, aside from the obvious one of more weight down lower making a better sailing vessel.

With all due respect this is not correct. A sailing boat needs a certain righting moment when heeled in order to give it stability. This same righting moment can be supplied by lead, iron, concrete, whatever in the keel. Important for the boat is how these forces are introduced to the hull and that is a question of the hull/keel joint design, irrespective of the keel material.

More dense materials will have less wetted area for sure, and maybe allow more freedom for the aerofoil design but the hull forces don't have to change with the material.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Perna

With all due respect this is not correct. A sailing boat needs a certain righting moment when heeled in order to give it stability. This same righting moment can be supplied by lead, iron, concrete, whatever in the keel. Important for the boat is how these forces are introduced to the hull and that is a question of the hull/keel joint design, irrespective of the keel material.

More dense materials will have less wetted area for sure, and maybe allow more freedom for the aerofoil design but the hull forces don't have to change with the material.

Engineering wise your probably right but on the practical side not so much. There is no question that hull keel designs can be just as strong whether using a keel of lead or iron but designers these days are really pushed on the cost side and high production boat builders throw nickels around like man hole covers which is why iron is used in the first place...to save money.
When I first learned to sail, boats in our area were pretty much all lead keels and hitting rocks was a very normal endeavour. In virtually every case it never amounted to more than a Bondo job on the keel however as we started to see the French boats arriving in large numbers with iron keels the damage done to some of the structures became the typical conversation over a beer. I even succumbed to buy a new French boat and had a rather soft wack on a rock and it broke the main glass supports throughout the floor, requiring a very expensive repair and no warrantee on the work because the boat was built with liners and the yard bluntly told me there could very easily be other damage covered by the liners that could not be seen.
That was my first experience with iron keels and liner boats...so yes the boats can be built to specifications that might be equal, they just aren't...R

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by blueazimuth

At this stage, there is no reason to run from this boat - it's not your boat. Your question is about iron keels of this design and condition.

Fiberglass boats with bolt on iron keels have been around for many years. Today, a bolt on iron keel boat is the most common design and build. From a builder's point of view, it's relatively cheap and easy to build.

If I were to putter around on weekends, with a week or two here and there, and used the boat sensibly for inshore work, I would have no problem with today's modern boats. They look attractive, they sail very well and have impressive interiors.

However, I would not consider taking such a modern boat offshore - there is history of keel failures, and loss off life, and on fairly new boats. From what I have heard, these catastrophic keel failures were not caused by grounding or lack of maintenance.
They were more likely caused by material and / or workmanship failure coupled, perhaps, with design.

Having said that, many modern boats of this design have made successful offshore passages. However, that is not what a large majority of these boats were designed for: they were designed for the charter trade, where such boats are not taken offshore, except when being delivered.

The fact is that most owners of this modern design do not plan to take their boat around the world, so why build a boat to that standard?

Going back to the original question - would I, out of hand, reject an older boat of this design, especially this one? No. And looking at the photo of this particular boat, would I agree with the owner? Yes. This appears no more than minor rust, common to these boats, and was not caused by damage. To sand, fill and paint the hull of this 28 year old boat, would not be an unreasonable course of action. I think that's what a surveyor would probably tell you.

Let's go further. This comes down to money, and not only sales price.
If the interior of this boat is good, and the engine, rigging, and sails do not need replacing any time soon, and there are no deck leaks, and there are no salt crystals nor salt water in the bilge, and the electronics, refrigeration and other equipment is reasonably modern, and fully functional, (ie the boat can be sailed, as is, and doesn't need serious money and time to be dumped into it), I would not reject this boat, for inshore sailing, based on keel design or keel condition.

I would further suggest that, after pulling the keel bolts, and based more on seamanship skills than keel design, this boat could be considered for sensible offshore work.

You wouldn't take an Amel Super maramu off shore? It has a iron bolt on keel. The Amel is just one of many.

What percentage of modern yachts have their keels fall off? I would suggest the number is extremely tiny relative to the tens of thousands of boats that have been built with bolt on keels.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Perna

With all due respect this is not correct. A sailing boat needs a certain righting moment when heeled in order to give it stability. This same righting moment can be supplied by lead, iron, concrete, whatever in the keel. Important for the boat is how these forces are introduced to the hull and that is a question of the hull/keel joint design, irrespective of the keel material.

More dense materials will have less wetted area for sure, and maybe allow more freedom for the aerofoil design but the hull forces don't have to change with the material.

Not true. Take a given boat design and build two finished boats, one with a lead ballast keel and one with iron. Assume both have a keel stub even (this may not be possible in the case of the iron keel). Assume both finished keels are exactly the same shape. The iron ballast keel will obviously be much larger, with a smaller stub. The two boats will appear identical in every way, except for the location of the keel/stub seam. However, the lead keeled boat will have a slightly lower center of gravity, and therefore, given the same rig, will be slightly stiffer. This is boat building 101, and the reason human beings moved from internal ballast to bolt on. Or at least, one of them. The denser the ballast medium, the stiffer the boat.