SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related) > lead ballast vs iron/cement
 Not a Member? 


Thread: lead ballast vs iron/cement Reply to Thread
Title:
  

By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Topic Review (Newest First)
05-05-2004 09:35 AM
windship
lead ballast vs iron/cement

Jeff,
yeah, I''d like to check that out. What do I type in the search space?
Thanks,
Before I comment I''d like to read it.However, I will say this,E 32''s, as you know, run about $15 to 35k, the centerboarders even less sometimes. So if by saying the insurance company wanting to total his boat was linked to the extence of the dammage, mabey his boat was only worth a little. Idon''t know. I also don''t know what was hit or how fast he was going. How many times in the past a collision accured. Was the ballast container filled with water, weak and delamiated. Was it a charter boat before.Who knows. You will just jump on any situation that makes you feel good about what you belive.
I''ve been in the sailing seen now for some twenty-five years which I know doesn''t come close to you but I have asked around- all around- and nobody in my imediate area has seen a ballast pushed up through the sealing membrane. I''m not saying that it doesn''t happen, but I am quite shure that it would take a violant collision to do what happened to this person''s E32.
And I don''t need ''fair winds,flat water and favorable currents'', I''ve been out in 10 to 12 footers with 45kts sustained wind and my E32 was splended. I know my boat is exactly what you hate but if you want to insult me and my boat, send me an email.
How do you think your boat would fair in a bad collision? Never mind I''ve seen and repaired plenty.

Dennis
05-05-2004 08:43 AM
windship
lead ballast vs iron/cement

Jeff,
yeah, I''d like to check that out. What do I type in the search space?
Thanks,
How do you think your boat would fair in a bad collision?
Dennis
05-05-2004 04:18 AM
Jeff_H
lead ballast vs iron/cement

You are correct that I only mentioned the reduced stability, carrying capacity or higher drag implicit with a low density ballast in passing.

Not to start a food fight, but for the record, your Endeavour 32 is only 4 inches shallower than a Vanguard, and as I have mentioned to you before, one of the boats that I have read a post on that drove its ballast keel up through its upper membrane was an Endeavour 32 (Do a search on CWBB around 1996/97, the discussion starts with a Watkins owned by a guy name Jerry with an encapsulated keel problem and in the course of that discussion there was a fellow with an Endeavour 32 trying to figure out how to do the repairs cheaply enough because the insurance company wanted to total his boat.)

Fair winds, Flat water, and favorable currents,
Jeff
05-04-2004 06:55 PM
windship
lead ballast vs iron/cement

Jeff,
While ranting about how much you hate encapsulated keels(and Idon''t even think that was the question)you forgot to mention that with crap cement/iron ballast, the center of gravity is much higher which further screws-up things.
My boat(an Endeavour 32)which draws 4''2" has an encapsulated keel would be a breeze to repair. Because she is not a deep draft keel(like mabey a Pearson Vanguard?)and she does have many layers of fiberglass sealing off and holding the ballast in place in case of an under the surface collision.
Bolt-on keels can be very strong IF desined and built properly but the problem IS is that they rarley are.

Dennis
05-04-2004 05:17 PM
kablotsky
lead ballast vs iron/cement

The keel is bolted to the (bottom of the) hull, surrounded with fiberglass, and faired to the hull.

05-04-2004 12:59 PM
Jeff_H
lead ballast vs iron/cement

If the ballast keel is encased, what is the ballast bolted to?

Jeff
05-04-2004 11:00 AM
kablotsky
lead ballast vs iron/cement

My 1987 Caliber 28'' has lead ballast -- both bolted and encased in fiberglass. I understand that newer & larger Calibers also use lead ballast.
05-04-2004 04:24 AM
levenezia
lead ballast vs iron/cement

My information came from Practical Boat Buying published by Practical Sailor, Vol. 2, 6th edition, page 325.
05-03-2004 07:56 PM
SailorMitch
lead ballast vs iron/cement

I have discarded all my Caliber info (I made an offer on a 33 a couple of years ago, which was rejected), but I could swear that the ballast in Calibers is lead. One reason I say this is because Caliber people always disparage Island Packets by pointing out that IP uses cement as part of their ballast. If you have a particular model/hull number in mind, call the factory and check with them on the construction. My brain could be failing, but I do recall that Caliber uses lead.
05-03-2004 05:44 AM
Jeff_H
lead ballast vs iron/cement

I really cannot understand why a boat that is supposedly a ''quality long distance crusier'' would ever use concrete and iron ballast. While there is a difference in cost between a cast lead ballast keel and a concrete and iron one, the difference (probably less than $3 to $5K) makes absolutely no sense over the life of the boat and generally makes me wonder what other corners the builder has been cut.

To answer your question, low density ballast is a major compromise. It means that much more ballast is needed to accomplish the same stability and that ballast comes at the price of increased displacement, increased drag, and often decreased carrying capacity. This greater weight and drag is not something to be ignored, it means that the sail plan has to be larger and the engine and fuel capacity needs to be larger. It means that you need to carry more sail in heavier going which is bad news since iron and concrete ballasted boats usually don''t have the stability to carry that extra sail. Adding weight and drag begins a design cycle that cumulatively just keeps making a boat heavier and heavier or else reduces the safety factors on the strength of the boat.

Iron and concrete ballast also brings up the whole encapsulated keel debate. This is another one of those ‘no one universally right answers’ item. In other words an argument can be made for either type of keel. (For the record, I personally strongly prefer a bolt on keel rather than an encapsulated keel.) Here’s the way I see it.

Bolt-on keels tend to offer more performance since the ballast must be cast and without the keel stub skin thickness tend to be lower relative to the center of bouyancy. They also have significantly less wetted surface and frontal area making them theoretically faster on all points of sail. They are simple to repair and generally can be repaired satisfactorily no matter how bad the mistake.

On the down side they are more expensive to build; requiring precision casting, bolt hole drilling and a lot more hand fairing. They are higher maintenance requiring fairing every 10 years or so and new keel bolts at some point in the boat’s life.

Encapsulated keels are less expensive to build. There’s less labor and less precision required. Boat builders will often use less expensive forms of ballasting with encapsulated keels, such as iron or lead scrap cast in concrete, resin or other binder which further reducing costs. If they are not damaged in a grounding, encapsulated keels are less expensive to maintain.

On the down side, as mentioned above they are less efficient from a sailing standpoint. Their real downside is the difficulty in doing a proper repair. Typically, in a hard grounding a number of things happen on an encapsulated keel. Typically the skin of the keel encapsulation gets ruptured and separates from the ballast. This allows water into the small cavities between the keel and the ballast and once wet it can mean the ‘beginning of the end’ for the boat as this permanently wet fiberglass blisters itself from the interior and the wet areas spread around the ballast. This is especially a problem on a boat that is hauled out for cold winters where freeze/ thaw cycles can really pry the skin loose from the ballast. The problem gets worse when the ballast contains ferrous materials. Here the ballast begins to rust and can reduce the ballast into a loose mass of concrete and rusting iron. Having watched a boat being rebuilt in which this had happened, I can assure that this is not a cheap process or one that I would want to go through.

Beyond that, in a grounding the ballast is often forced upward as well. In an encapsulated keel the membrane of the hull is at the outside of the keel and the membrane above the ballast is often quite thin. In a bad grounding the ballast keel is often is pushed through this membrane causing a serious and difficult to repair damage and leak.

We grounded a boat with an encapsulated keel that we never could permanently fix for as long as we owned the boat. The problem would get worse with every year, spreading from a small dimple on the leading edge of the keel to an area that was much of the bottom and sides of the keel.

Lastly, it is very hard to lay-up the glass in the keel cavity. As a result the glass work in this vulnerable area of the boat is often inferior to the glass work else where on the boat.

To some extent this arguement is one of ultimate durability vs low maintenance. A bolt on lead keel will last forever but will require higher maintenance to do so. Sooner or later, an encapsulated keel will spell the end of the useful life of a boat, but will require less maintenance until the time that the ballast keel has delaminated from the keel cavity.

Respectfully,
Jeff
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.