Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-27-2014, 02:58 PM   #21
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
It's impossible to make any real assessment, positive or negative, based on a few pictures or what you think may have happened. The real beauty of steel is that you can cut away the damaged parts (in this case certainly the entire topsides) and replace at essentially full strength and structural integrity.

Of course experts will assess what's left. My observation was that if the paint is undamaged (and I don't know that it is) the steel did not get very hot. Can steel change composition and leave the paint on it undamaged? I have no idea. This site seems to suggest that even if the steel is buckled it's only lost 10% of it's strength......

Fire damage assessment of hot rolled structural steelwork - Steelconstruction.info
__________________
Advertisement

Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2014, 09:51 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
funangler's Avatar
 
City: Erie PA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Endless Endeavor
Vessel Model: Custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 214
Building a steel hull is the cheap part of the boat all the mechanical parts is where the cost is. Better to scrap and start fresh even for a fishing boat.
__________________

funangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:46 AM   #23
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by funangler View Post
Building a steel hull is the cheap part of the boat all the mechanical parts is where the cost is. Better to scrap and start fresh even for a fishing boat.
It's two-fold financially undesirable. First, is the value of the steel hull isn't that great especially when you need to test it and redesign the boat. But second it's a horrific gamble. It's not just that you're spending X dollars on the hull. You're then going to invest several times that in building beyond the hull. So you don't just stand to lose your hull investment. You now stand to use the total build investment or many times your initial investment.

You just don't build on a questionable foundation.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:23 PM   #24
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post

You just don't build on a questionable foundation.
Thread drift......

I don't think that statement makes much sense. The vast majority of people on this forum are going to sea in 40+ year old fiberglass structures built by unknown Asian people with absolutely zero quality control and no testing. People are happy to risk the lives of their families on boats which they have no information as to structural integrity, seaworthiness, or safety. The only fact available is "It hasn't sunk yet."

Yes, I know about pre-purchase surveys, I've read hundreds of them. The structure "appears sound".....this is a joke. Fitness for purpose is avoided completely, due to liability. The only thing stated with conviction is that the boat exists, that they will stand behind.

The other side of that argument is that pleasure boats spend few hours under way, don't go far from shelter, and mostly travel in good weather. So far (and within tight limits) insurance companies judge the risk quite small.

Back on topic....

No one should touch her because the hull is the cheap part? No one should rebuild her because there are thousands of existing, floating, useable boats for sale at bargain prices. But some people have other ideas.......
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:41 PM   #25
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
Thread drift......

I don't think that statement makes much sense. The vast majority of people on this forum are going to sea in 40+ year old fiberglass structures built by unknown Asian people with absolutely zero quality control and no testing. People are happy to risk the lives of their families on boats which they have no information as to structural integrity, seaworthiness, or safety. The only fact available is "It hasn't sunk yet."

Yes, I know about pre-purchase surveys, I've read hundreds of them. The structure "appears sound".....this is a joke. Fitness for purpose is avoided completely, due to liability. The only thing stated with conviction is that the boat exists, that they will stand behind.

The other side of that argument is that pleasure boats spend few hours under way, don't go far from shelter, and mostly travel in good weather. So far (and within tight limits) insurance companies judge the risk quite small.

Back on topic....

No one should touch her because the hull is the cheap part? No one should rebuild her because there are thousands of existing, floating, useable boats for sale at bargain prices. But some people have other ideas.......
The "unknown Asian people with absolutely zero quality control and no testing" isn't a fair statement at all. Furthermore, your analogy is off. It's one thing to buy a boat that has been built, can be checked and tested fully before putting more money in it. However, I stick by my statement. It's quite another to buy a hull, spend the money completing the boat before you can find out how it really performs.

As to Asian builds, many of the builders are well known and have a history of either quality or lack thereof depending on builder. No one hesitates to buy Nordhavn and they're an Asian builder. There are quite a few others with solid reputations.

Now a 40 year old boat is always subject to question. But it can be surveyed and a good surveyor can do more than you describe. Furthermore, it can be given a sea trial and the purchaser included. You cannot give a burned boat's hull a sea trial.

Again, I would never put money into just a shell of a hull that had been damaged even if it appeared minor. Wouldn't matter whether steel, glass or any other material.

That hull only at this point has salvage value based on the material itself. Anyone investing further in it is just like those taking old fishing hulls and building upon them. When they finish the build, the resulting boat is of far less value than the cost to build it.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:51 PM   #26
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,887
There is a good chance there is a good bit of undamaged machinery below. Like engines, generators, tanks, pumps, shafts, rudders, props, etc. A fire on a steel boat often does not get through decks and bulkheads. Depends on if hatches were open.

Who knows..

Could also be flooded from the firehoses, too.
__________________

Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012