"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:06:27 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Joe" wrote in message
roups.com...
http://www.1000days.net/images/press...ingout_300.jpg

Plans on 1000 days at sea, non-stop.

Archetypal example of why I'd never own a ferrocement boat: ugly.

Max

While this one is bad ugly, I spent 8 days on one on a leg of a trip
moving it from Annapolis to Pensacola. A 42 foot pilot house Ketch.
It was very nice looking, had great classic lines, and was well
constructed by a yard, that according to the owner, observed the
method of continuous, wet, monolithic, forming of the hull.


The reason I wouldn't own one is the same reason the owner finally
sold it. Seems, you cannot get insurance at a reasonable cost.

The problem with ferrocement, Frank, is one of image. It was touted as the
homebuilder's material of choice for a few decades. Quite a few folks got
into building FC boats, but almost none had any sense of aesthetics, nor had
they the ability to build good designs with any degree of uniformity of
character. Corners became rounded, long spans became serpentine, and most
craft had the appearance of stark irregularity. The net effect was a
terribly amateurish appearance, with very few exceptions. And, as you've
implied, the insurance carriers were afraid of the material, not to mention
the amateur-built aspect.

Last summer I toured a FC boat in which a couple had just completed the
Great Loop. They'd encountered heavy seas and strong winds in the Gulf,
having chose to cut across rather than stay with the ICW. According to them
the boat was solid and free of damage from 50kt. winds and towering seas. I
believed them. The interior was lovely, if cramped. But the exterior of
the boat had that typical FC appearance, despite being clean, freshly
painted, and well-kept. It just wasn't a good-looking boat, or one that
would instill pride in ownership. Not for me.

Max