I recently purchased a 30 odd year old hartley queenslander ferro
cement sloop. I love it and so does my family and friends. Its a funny
old thing, everything works, but all the know alls who own boats built
of other materials look down their noses and all have some anecdotal
story about the woes of ferro construction. It sails beautifully,
motors with ease, is very comfortable.
Could someone who has owned , or does own a ferro share with me their
trials and tribulations.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:28:04 -0700, dave
wrote:

I recently purchased a 30 odd year old hartley queenslander ferro
cement sloop. I love it and so does my family and friends. Its a funny
old thing, everything works, but all the know alls who own boats built
of other materials look down their noses and all have some anecdotal
story about the woes of ferro construction. It sails beautifully,
motors with ease, is very comfortable.
Could someone who has owned , or does own a ferro share with me their
trials and tribulations.

I don;t own one but have a mate that owns a 50 footer. He used to sail
it to Perth every year and back to Thailand six months later. No
problems with the hull.

The reason that ferocement boats have a bad reputation is because
people used to b build them in their back wards and when it came time
to plaster them would get a bunch of beer and all their mates in. some
of these were pretty horrible. Other people were smart enough to have
a professional plasterer do the job and never have a problem.

They are heavy for their length though and you'll probably find that
you can carry a lot more sail then the fiberglass boats.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote

They are heavy for their length though and you'll probably find that
you can carry a lot more sail then the fiberglass boats.

But a LOT less than a cored glass boat of the same shape and equal
displacement with the weight saved in the hull carried as ballast. The
glass boat will also be much stronger if some of the weight savings is used
to add material.

I once figured out that a typical ferrocement hull was the material
equivalent of 1/64 of an inch of steel on each side of a 1/2 inch concrete
core. Does that sound like a way to build a boat? Worse the steel, which
should be the tensile material on a thin shell, was on the inside and the
concrete, a material most effective in compression, was on the outside.

Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. That doesn't mean you
can't built a good boat out of it, just that it will not be as strong or
well performing as other materials which are not significantly different in
cost when you consider the full investment.

--
Roger Long

On Aug 17, 2:52 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
....
Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up. That doesn't mean you
can't built a good boat out of it, just that it will not be as strong or
well performing as other materials which are not significantly different in
cost when you consider the full investment.
....

Indeed, particularly with yachts where most of the total cost is in
the fit-out. But that's new builds. From time to time there are some
really good deals on the used market in fero and I know some folks who
have cruised happily in big stone boats that cost them far less than
an equivalent used boat in metal or plastic would have. I am aware of
the many arguments folks make against fero and am not a big fan of it
myself, but some cruisers have been very well served by their cement
craft.

-- Tom.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:25:38 -0700, "
wrote:

Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up.

Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter
than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong.

On Aug 18, 2:18 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:25:38 -0700, "

wrote:
Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up.

Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter
than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong.

I didn't write that. I was quoting Roger. My feeling is that the
word construction is implied in his statement. As built to typical
scantlings wooden boat construction is lighter but weaker than steel
construction. In small craft the difference is very significant
because of minimum practical plate thickness.

-- Tom.

"Richard Casady" wrote:

Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up.

Steel is lighter than wood. of equal strength. Aluminum is lighter
than wood. For the same weight aluminum and steel are equally strong.

Compared to an Airex cored hull with epoxy and knitted glass skins, all of
the above are a joke.

Lew

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:52:17 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up.

My inland lake fishing boat is 22 feet of riveted aluminum. It has a
bow locker with two tiny bunks. Too thin to weld. It is both strong
and light and I love it. It cost two grand, and if the available steal
had been glass, I would have that. Steel is either too thin for good
welding, or too heavy, in anything smaller than maybe seventy five
feet. You can perhaps rivet that stuff too. Aluminum killed the wood
boats before there even was glass. Where I do my boating there are a
bunch of aluminum boats mostly fifty years old, no maintainence ever,
and lighter than the wood they replaced. Aluminum is good, but it is a
bit noisy in the sheet metal type thicknesses. Of course, destroyer
hulls were famous for noisy oil canning. Why they called them tin
cans. Quarter inch plates.

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:52:17 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up.

My inland lake fishing boat is 22 feet of riveted aluminum. It has a
bow locker with two tiny bunks. Too thin to weld. It is both strong
and light and I love it. It cost two grand, and if the available steal
had been glass, I would have that. Steel is either too thin for good
welding, or too heavy, in anything smaller than maybe seventy five
feet. You can perhaps rivet that stuff too. Aluminum killed the wood
boats before there even was glass. Where I do my boating there are a
bunch of aluminum boats mostly fifty years old, no maintainence ever,
and lighter than the wood they replaced. Aluminum is good, but it is a
bit noisy in the sheet metal type thicknesses. Of course, destroyer
hulls were famous for noisy oil canning. Why they called them tin
cans. Quarter inch plates.

What is this repeated comment about "steel...too thin for good welding"?
Unless we're talking about foil, thinner guage steel (16 or even 18 ga) is
entirely weldable. I should think 1/4" steel would be excellent for
below-the-waterline on a 35 footer, perhaps going to 1/8th or 3/16ths above
the waterline and for decks. Frames could be trussed to achieve strength
without excessive weight. I believe that the biggest reason for having
extreme thickness in steel hulls is to provide more material that can be
lost to corrosion before compromising the hull. But with modern epoxy
coatings, perhaps overlaid with glass or some other material for abrasion
protection (to protect the epoxy barrier), this could be made unnecessary.

Just thinking aloud.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:30:09 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:52:17 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Strong as wood, heavy as steel, about sums it up.

My inland lake fishing boat is 22 feet of riveted aluminum. It has a
bow locker with two tiny bunks. Too thin to weld. It is both strong
and light and I love it. It cost two grand, and if the available steal
had been glass, I would have that. Steel is either too thin for good
welding, or too heavy, in anything smaller than maybe seventy five
feet. You can perhaps rivet that stuff too. Aluminum killed the wood
boats before there even was glass. Where I do my boating there are a
bunch of aluminum boats mostly fifty years old, no maintainence ever,
and lighter than the wood they replaced. Aluminum is good, but it is a
bit noisy in the sheet metal type thicknesses. Of course, destroyer
hulls were famous for noisy oil canning. Why they called them tin
cans. Quarter inch plates.

What is this repeated comment about "steel...too thin for good welding"?
Unless we're talking about foil, thinner gauge steel (16 or even 18 ga) is
entirely weldable. I should think 1/4" steel would be excellent for
below-the-waterline on a 35 footer, perhaps going to 1/8th or 3/16ths above
the waterline and for decks. Frames could be trussed to achieve strength
without excessive weight. I believe that the biggest reason for having
extreme thickness in steel hulls is to provide more material that can be
lost to corrosion before compromising the hull. But with modern epoxy
coatings, perhaps overlaid with glass or some other material for abrasion
protection (to protect the epoxy barrier), this could be made unnecessary.

Just thinking aloud.

What he is talking about is that the wrinkled steel hulls that you see
are generally pretty thin. But the wrinkles are generally a factor of
economics. If you want to pay for the experience and the time there is
no reason that a welded metal boat can't be pretty damned fair. But it
is going to cost you so much money that it won't seem worth it. Much
cheaper to slap on the filler and sandpaper it.



Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)