Having A Bad Day? (boats swept away on the Lot in France)

[Griff500]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Robin of woody Kingfisher fame has rescued some desperately sad looking synthetic boats that he's successfully brought back from the dark side. One man's write off might be another man treasure!   

Seeing those with superstructures ripped off after hitting the barrages at +15mph, I think that they'll need more than a bit of T Cut...

[Griff500]

5 minutes ago, grendel said:

I would think they would still be responsible for removing the hazards to navigation caused by sunken and wrecked boats

Not to mention a good 4000 litres of diesel pollution if they were all filled to the brim for winter.. 

[Cal]

14 hours ago, grendel said:

I would think they would still be responsible for removing the hazards to navigation caused by sunken and wrecked boats

Would that not be the insurers responsibility rather than the responsibility of the boat yard?

[annv]

When they say it's a right off it means it is not worth the cost to repair at market prices, it is cheaper for insurance company to just pay the insured value, there may well be some one that will purchase one and spend their free time repairing it, just the same as with cars a write of doesn't mean it is not repairable.  John

[Cal]

53 minutes ago, annv said:

When they say it's a right off it means it is not worth the cost to repair at market prices, it is cheaper for insurance company to just pay the insured value, there may well be some one that will purchase one and spend their free time repairing it, just the same as with cars a write of doesn't mean it is not repairable.  John

The other half is a panel beater, his job is car body repair and restoration.

 

When a car is written off by an insurer it is generally because it is beyond economical repair. Yes you can buy them and repair them, but the costs of those repairs usually then exceeds the value of the car that has been repaired but is on the write off list. They are very rarely a good buy.

 

Same with boats. They are written off for a reason.

[MauriceMynah]

True Cal, but sometimes it's tricky to assess the value of a car to it's owner.

My old Volve 850 was thrutched up the backside, causing some damage. Had I gone through the insurance, I would have been paid out next to nothing as that would be the list price for a car of that age. (over 20 years old)

I never had the car repaired and the insurance company was not involved. I would not have been able to have replaced the car like for like. It was worth more than a couple of hundred to me.

[CambridgeCabby]

So true John , my late stepfather stupidly drove into the rising bollards in Cambridge , his car was a Renault 25 it was twelve years old and had travelled less than 6000 miles from new it was literally like a new car , insurance pay out was £400 we searched for a car of equivalent size and condition and the cheapest we could find was more than £5k 

[Vaughan]

I wouldn't mind having the engine, hydraulic drive and stern gear out of one of those write-offs. That would certainly make a difference to my own boat!

[floydraser]

3 hours ago, annv said:

When they say it's a right off it means it is not worth the cost to repair at market prices, it is cheaper for insurance company to just pay the insured value, there may well be some one that will purchase one and spend their free time repairing it, just the same as with cars a write of doesn't mean it is not repairable.  John

Absolutely, which is sort of where I was going earlier. Car's identities are on record with insurance companies and write-offs are categorised. You can repair a written off car but it's history will always be with it, officially.

Is that the same for boats? I've never been asked for anything more than the name and make of a boat and as far as I am aware, that name is for me to change if I want?

The grp structure of a boat is extremely strong and to a degree, easily repairable to it's original strength. Then it comes down to economics. Recovered wrecks have to be stored somewhere at someone's expense. The longer they are stored, the more of a waste of money it is. A lot of us are currently learning the cost of storing a boat that can't be used! 

I hope they all end up in a place like the Barry yard for old locos where you could go and take your pick!

[Vaughan]

19 minutes ago, floydraser said:

The grp structure of a boat is extremely strong and to a degree, easily repairable to it's original strength.

I am afraid this is something that is largely mis-understood about Fibreglass.  It is not strong at all!  It depends for its rigidity and structure on the furniture inside the boat.  If you have ever stepped into a freshly moulded GRP hull when just delivered, and floating in the water with nothing in it, it is more akin to a bouncy castle!

I am afraid that the sort of damage done to those boats, by slamming sideways into a bridge pier at 7 MPH or more, can never be repaired perfectly.  Especially where the curved shapes of the cabin tops are concerned.  The only real way would be to remove the deck and cabin moulding altogether and put it back in a mould tool.  In which case, you may as well make a new moulding! 

It is also unlikely that a decent gelcoat repair over the serious damage can be achieved, so the cabin top and deck would have to be sanded and painted.  Which immediately de-values the boat. Good Fibreglass repairs can normally only be done by gaining access to the inside of the hull or deck and working from the inside.

And we haven't even mentioned damage to the bulkheads or wooden interior, nor water damage to machinery, electrics and upholstery.  I don't know how many sank but I should think all of them took on a lot of water.  We can see that from the videos.

[ranworthbreeze]

One has to ask how the insurance underwriters will look upon how all these boats were moored for the winter, if it is deemed as neglect or bad practices by the boatyards management. The insurers might not honour the claims. 

[floydraser]

17 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I am afraid this is something that is largely mis-understood about Fibreglass.  It is not strong at all!  It depends for its rigidity and structure on the furniture inside the boat.  If you have ever stepped into a freshly moulded GRP hull when just delivered, and floating in the water with nothing in it, it is more akin to a bouncy castle!

I am afraid that the sort of damage done to those boats, by slamming sideways into a bridge pier at 7 MPH or more, can never be repaired perfectly.  Especially where the curved shapes of the cabin tops are concerned.  The only real way would be to remove the deck and cabin moulding altogether and put it back in a mould tool.  In which case, you may as well make a new moulding! 

It is also unlikely that a decent gelcoat repair over the serious damage can be achieved, so the cabin top and deck would have to be sanded and painted.  Which immediately de-values the boat. Good Fibreglass repairs can normally only be done by gaining access to the inside of the hull or deck and working from the inside.

And we haven't even mentioned damage to the bulkheads or wooden interior, nor water damage to machinery, electrics and upholstery.  I don't know how many sank but I should think all of them took on a lot of water.  We can see that from the videos.

Sorry Vaughan, with the greatest of respect and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the whole forum, I have have to disagree.

I have stood in a freshly moulded hull and superstructure and you are correct, it is flimsy. Or at least it would be if it weren't supported on the outside in preparation for the fitting of the bulkheads, which was my job. Like any other material, grp relies on it's use as a structure. 

We don't know exactly what damage was done but as a whole, each boat complete with bulkheads would be a very strong structure and the "bouncy castle" would also flex to a degree, soaking up a bit of the impact. If we don't re-use the mouldings, what do we do with them? There's a cost to disposing of them financially and environmentally. What is "perfectly"? The result may not be exactly as original but so what? If someone has to make a slight detail change but acheives a smart, functioning and perfectly useable boat then good them. 

Perfectly adequate gelcoat repairs are achievable but I think reference to de-valuing the boat doesn't apply to a repaired write off; economically we're starting at zero and adding value. Correct, working inside the moulding allows more practical overlap to restore the original strength.

It depends how many of the internal bulkheads are actually moulded in grp (one of the things I don't actually like about modern boats but can't argue they are probably cheaper to make and stronger) but wooden ones are replaceable if needed; they won't have been under water for that long if at all. If buying one of the wrecks one would argue all the bulkheads and fittings need replacement. In practice, one would use as many of the original fittings as possible.

 

[andyg]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

Sorry Vaughan, with the greatest of respect and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the whole forum, I have have to disagree.

I have stood in a freshly moulded hull and superstructure and you are correct, it is flimsy. Or at least it would be if it weren't supported on the outside in preparation for the fitting of the bulkheads, which was my job. Like any other material, grp relies on it's use as a structure. 

We don't know exactly what damage was done but as a whole, each boat complete with bulkheads would be a very strong structure and the "bouncy castle" would also flex to a degree, soaking up a bit of the impact. If we don't re-use the mouldings, what do we do with them? There's a cost to disposing of them financially and environmentally. What is "perfectly"? The result may not be exactly as original but so what? If someone has to make a slight detail change but acheives a smart, functioning and perfectly useable boat then good them. 

Perfectly adequate gelcoat repairs are achievable but I think reference to de-valuing the boat doesn't apply to a repaired write off; economically we're starting at zero and adding value. Correct, working inside the moulding allows more practical overlap to restore the original strength.

It depends how many of the internal bulkheads are actually moulded in grp (one of the things I don't actually like about modern boats but can't argue they are probably cheaper to make and stronger) but wooden ones are replaceable if needed; they won't have been under water for that long if at all. If buying one of the wrecks one would argue all the bulkheads and fittings need replacement. In practice, one would use as many of the original fittings as possible.

 

I was moored in HW yard one Monday evening, when they towed in a king of light that had been sunk at the entrance to the chet. It had been under water for a couple of days. Returning my boat on the Friday morning I was really surprised to see the same boat outside the shed all repaired, just awaiting the soft furnishings and new curtains. So I'm assuming very little of the water damaged wood was replaced, galley cabinets, bunk bases etc. Just couldn't believe they turned that around so quickly. 

[JennyMorgan]

In truth I think that there advantages and disadvantages with both materials. Greater rigidity needs to be built into a GRP hull than a wood one and whilst the integrity of the whole remains in place then there will be great strength. By and large wood will take more punishment than a glass one. GRP is a bit like a chicken egg, whilst the integrity of the shell remains intact then there is remarkable strength. GRP doesn't tend to like localised stress or impact. 

[grendel]

car write offs are categorised, there is beyond economical repair and there is structurally damaged, I once had a less than 5mph shunt with a post office van that turned right from behind a bus straight across in front of me not 10 foot from me when he appeared, the insurance company wrote it off as structural damage when it should have been beyond economical repair, but I bought it back, still got more than i had paid for it, and for £40 got a second hand bonnet, in the correct colour, another £20 for the new number plate, and when I took it to the dvla inspection centre, they too questioned why it had been classed as structurally damaged, after all a dented bonnet and broken number plate and front grill are not really structural, the replacement bonnet had the grill in it already, yes to replace the panel with a new one and paint it would have cost more than the car was worth, but to mis categorise the damage was inexcusable, I think insurance companies just want to get the older cars off the roads.

just to explain a car that has been classes structurally damaged has to be recertified to be able to tax it again. I took in photos of the damage when i took it to the test.

I have previously bought cars that have been written off, i mean a small dent in the rear wing doesnt stop a car being a good car, its just not as pretty, and you had to look pretty hard to find that dent too.

[floydraser]

28 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

In truth I think that there advantages and disadvantages with both materials. Greater rigidity needs to be built into a GRP hull than a wood one and whilst the integrity of the whole remains in place then there will be great strength. By and large wood will take more punishment than a glass one. GRP is a bit like a chicken egg, whilst the integrity of the shell remains intact then there is remarkable strength. GRP doesn't tend to like localised stress or impact. 

I think what you're saying Peter, is that if those boats in France had been good ol' Norfolk Wherries, we would be discussing how to repair the bridges not the boats! 

[JennyMorgan]

28 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I think what you're saying Peter, is that if those boats in France had been good ol' Norfolk Wherries, we would be discussing how to repair the bridges not the boats! 

There used to be a well known wherry based in France, for many years home to several 'ladies of the night'. She's back in Norfolk now, don't know if she ever took any bridges out. Apparently she only carried a port-hand light.

[NorfolkNog]

Would that be the Ardea JM? 

Was shown around her a while back but not by a 'lady of the night' sadly 

[Griff500]

4 hours ago, floydraser said:

Sorry Vaughan, with the greatest of respect and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the whole forum, I have have to disagree.

I have stood in a freshly moulded hull and superstructure and you are correct, it is flimsy. Or at least it would be if it weren't supported on the outside in preparation for the fitting of the bulkheads, which was my job. Like any other material, grp relies on it's use as a structure. 

We don't know exactly what damage was done but as a whole, each boat complete with bulkheads would be a very strong structure and the "bouncy castle" would also flex to a degree, soaking up a bit of the impact. If we don't re-use the mouldings, what do we do with them? There's a cost to disposing of them financially and environmentally. What is "perfectly"? The result may not be exactly as original but so what? If someone has to make a slight detail change but acheives a smart, functioning and perfectly useable boat then good them. 

Perfectly adequate gelcoat repairs are achievable but I think reference to de-valuing the boat doesn't apply to a repaired write off; economically we're starting at zero and adding value. Correct, working inside the moulding allows more practical overlap to restore the original strength.

It depends how many of the internal bulkheads are actually moulded in grp (one of the things I don't actually like about modern boats but can't argue they are probably cheaper to make and stronger) but wooden ones are replaceable if needed; they won't have been under water for that long if at all. If buying one of the wrecks one would argue all the bulkheads and fittings need replacement. In practice, one would use as many of the original fittings as possible.

 

With the speed and force that those boats hit solid objects such as unforgiving stone Bridge piers and concrete barrages, the delamination of the hulls snd superstructures will be, for the most part, beyond repair. Those bulkheads which are usually ply bonded to the hulls will have been forced through the hulls perhaps only appearing as crazing externally but having caused extensive delamination of the layup. A simple gel coat repair gives no strength and large parts of the damaged areas will need to be cut out in order to let in a pre-moulded section or a mould laid over the cut out part in order to rebuild from the inside. The actual rigidity of the construction in this type of accident would have been more detrimental to the outcome than that of a more flexible structure...

[marshman]

Or even Suffolk wherries perhaps?

[JennyMorgan]

39 minutes ago, NorfolkNog said:

Would that be the Ardea JM? 

Indeed it was. Interestingly she, like Albion, was Suffolk built so surely both are Suffolk rather than Norfolk Wherries? (Beaten to it by Marshman on that one!!)

[annv]

I am sure most will be sold for salvage if only engine and gear box is used and if drained of water quickly enough no lasting damage will have accured could be some bargain's for some one with DIY skills. John

[rightsaidfred]

On 12/02/2021 at 12:59, Cal said:

The other half is a panel beater, his job is car body repair and restoration.

 

When a car is written off by an insurer it is generally because it is beyond economical repair. Yes you can buy them and repair them, but the costs of those repairs usually then exceeds the value of the car that has been repaired but is on the write off list. They are very rarely a good buy.

 

Same with boats. They are written off for a reason.

Sorry to disagree but I have a friend who specalises in wright offs and makes a good living from buying them spending a few quid and some man hours and then selling for a profit, insurance companys use the wright off option as an easy get out.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

36 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Sorry to disagree but I have a friend who specalises in wright offs and makes a good living from buying them spending a few quid and some man hours and then selling for a profit, insurance companys use the wright off option as an easy get out.

Fred

Strikes me that Americans are even more inclined to write off damaged boats than we are in the UK. I have a good friend who buys US write-off sports cruisers, ships them back to the UK, tarts them up and re-sells, very often needing to do very little work to them. Hurricane season can be rich pickings!

[Happy]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Strikes me that Americans are even more inclined to write off damaged boats than we are in the UK. I have a good friend who buys US write-off sports cruisers, ships them back to the UK, tarts them up and re-sells, very often needing to do very little work to them. Hurricane season can be rich pickings!

 The biggest problem with repaired cars is that as soon as they are catergorised as repaired it does not matter how well they have been repaired the 'marker' stays with them and the values are about 40% less than they otherwise would have been - plus it is illegal not to disclose the marker when selling the vehicle.