Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
RedsfanUk

Just had survey on potential boat.

Featured Posts

Hi,

 

I've just had a survey on my potential first boat purchase ,just looking for opinions/advice on the hull aspect (pitting) does this look a good hull condition to you guys?

 

A Hull sides: 
 Based on the thickness readings taken, it is indicative that the hull sides were originally fabricated from nominal 6mm steel plate. 
 Ultrasonic measurements were taken with a Tritex 5500 triple echo meter with a 13mm probe. The side plates had a covering of marine growth and were not pressure washed prior to inspection. Sample areas were selected at random along the side plates, and the marine growth and paint coating was removed with a hand scraper in these areas only. From the sample areas selected, ultrasonic measurements show the plate thickness to be between 5.8mm and 6mm, which are within acceptable limits. Moderate pitting corrosion is present and the maximum pit depth measured was approx. 1.8mm. The steel thickness may be thinner, and deeper pitting may be present in the areas where the marine growth and paint coating was not removed for inspection. The steel thickness may also be thinner than the readings obtained if any internal corrosion is present, as the meter cannot discriminate between echoes from the back wall of the item being measured and any corrosion on the internal plate. 
 Moderate wastage corrosion was noted around the waterline and through hull outlets, and the hull requires blacking. 
 
Rec 4:  De-rust and the areas around the waterline and through hull outlets, and then re-black the hull. 
 
NB  It is important to keep the hull protected by regular re-blacking at maximum intervals of    approx. two years, and maintaining adequate cathodic protection to help minimise any future   pitting and corrosion to the hull. 
 B Hull bottom (base plate):  
 
The hull is flat bottomed with an overlap to protect the chine weld. Based on the thickness readings taken, it is indicative that the hull bottom was originally fabricated from nominal 10mm steel plate. 
 The bottom plates had a covering of marine growth and were not pressure washed prior to inspection. Sample areas were selected at random along the bottom plates, and the marine growth was removed with a hand scraper in these areas only. From the sample areas selected, ultrasonic measurements show the plate thickness to be between 9.6mm and 10mm, which are within acceptable limits. Widespread pitting corrosion is present and the maximum pit depth measured was approx. 1.8mm. The steel thickness may be thinner and deeper pitting may be present in the areas where the marine growth was not removed for inspection. The steel thickness may also be thinner than the readings obtained if any internal corrosion is present, as the meter cannot discriminate between echoes from the back wall of the item being measured and any corrosion on the internal plate. 
 The bottom plates appear to have no visible coating, which is normal industry practice, but is not best practice. Weld protection is provided by a sacrificial overlap of the base plate which has approximately between 10-15mm of wear edge remaining.  
 
Rec 5:  It is generally believed that the base plate of the hull does not require blacking as the    coating would quickly be worn off under normal use, and is normally not possible due to    restrictions placed in the dry dock. This however does not always appear to be true and the    coating can last just as long as the paint system on the rest of the hull. I recommend that    wherever possible the base plate be coated to protect the steelwork and help minimise any    future pitting and corrosion to the steelwork. 
 
 
 
 5 
 
C Counter / Uxter plate: 
 Based on the thickness readings taken, it is indicative that the counter plate was originally fabricated from nominal 6mm steel plate. 
 The counter plates had a covering of marine growth and were not pressure washed prior to inspection. Sample areas were selected at random along the counter plates, and the marine growth and paint coating was removed with a hand scraper in these areas only. From the sample areas selected, ultrasonic measurements show the plate thickness to be between 5.8mm and 6mm, which are within acceptable limits. Light pitting corrosion is present and the maximum pit depth measured was approx. 0.5mm. The steel thickness may be thinner and deeper pitting may be present in the areas where the marine growth was not removed for inspection. The steel thickness may also be thinner than the readings obtained if any internal corrosion is present, as the meter cannot discriminate between echoes from the back wall of the item being measured and any corrosion on the internal plate. 
 D Ultrasonic measurements 
 
The diagrams below are an approximate guide to show the general position from where the ultrasonic measurements were taken from, and the plate thickness reading obtained in millimetres. The diagram is not to scale. 
 
Starboard side readings: 
 
 
5.9mm  5.9mm    5.8mm  5.8mm  5.8mm  5.8mm  5.8mm 6mm 
 
 6mm   5.9mm  5.9mm  5.9mm  5.9mm  5.9mm 
 
 
5.8mm         6mm    10mm          9.6mm           9.6mm         9.8mm 9.9mm          10mm 9.8mm 9.9mm 
 
Portside reading: 
 
 
           5.9mm  5.9mm      6mm   5.8mm                  5.8mm                    5.8mm                        5.8mm                  5.8mm  
     6mm     5.9mm     5.9mm     5.9mm     5.9mm  6mm 
 
           9.8mm           9.8mm    9.8mm         9.8mm 9.8mm         9.6mm 9.6mm    9.8mm    6mm        5.8mm

 

Thanks in advance for any advice given

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking to insure it fully comprehensive your insurers will probably "suggest" that you have the pits welded up.

 

The minimum thickness that they will generally insure is 4.0mm, and with a 6mm plate with 1.8mm pits and the following comment :-

10 minutes ago, RedsfanUk said:

The steel thickness may be thinner and deeper pitting may be present in the areas where the marine growth was not removed for inspection. The steel thickness may also be thinner than the readings obtained if any internal corrosion is present,

 

May mean you cannot insure it without the additional work being done.

 

This is typical of surveyor 'speak'  "it looks like it may be 4.2mm, but it may be thinner as our test meter doesn't work very well".

 

What age is the boat ?

Is it a low priced boat (compared to similar boats) ?

 

Even if it is not 4.0mm now it could be within a year or two.

 

I'd suggest that before committing yourself to this boat speak with the insurers to find out what they require, and, get the surveyor (or someone else) to give you an estimate of the costs of filling in the pits.

 

You can then make an informed decision - BUT - just beware that there are many examples of 'once the repairs are started the damage is found across a wider area and cost a lot more than planned'.

 

If it is 'the boat for you' and you can get another £5,000 knocked off the price to cover repairs it may be worth going for it.

 

Good luck.

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few members of this Forum that will not agree with Recommendation 5 regarding painting the baseplate . Overall that seems a reasonable survey , the base plate on my boat when built was thinner than that boats 10mm minus the 1.8mm pits . I would ensure the base plate is cleaned and the pits treated  with Vactan and then coated with Sealex 'B' bitumastic. . How old is the boat ? 

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be far more concerned about the wastage corrosion around the waterline than the unblacked baseplate. It may well be that the boat has never been blacked since it was first launched - does the OP know its history? A 2011 boat should still be in the first flush of its youth. 

10 minutes ago, Troyboy said:

There are a few members of this Forum that will not agree with Recommendation 5 regarding painting the baseplate

 

Yes, me, for one.

The deepest baseplate pits seem to be 0.4mm, which is 4% of the total steel thickness. They may well have been there since new. Nothing to worry about at all.

  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I'd be far more concerned about the wastage corrosion around the waterline than the unblacked baseplate. It may well be that the boat has never been blacked since it was first launched - does the OP know its history? A 2011 boat should still be in the first flush of its youth. 

 

Yes, me, for one.

Me also, painting baseplate is a waste of time, effort and money. You will be dead before that baseplate needs repair. 

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

...l...........

I'd suggest that before committing yourself to this boat speak with the insurers to find out what they require, and, get the surveyor (or someone else) to give you an estimate of the costs of filling in the pits.

.............

There is no point only welding up the pits the surveyor found as 99% of the hull has not been cleaned to a condition to inspect it.  It will be difficult to get a sensible quote for welding up the pits without cleaning off all the marine growth and possibly grit blasting as well to remove blacking from any pits so they can be found.  This is getting expensive.  If you do go this route, and I am not sure I would, if the surface is grit blasted then I  would use epoxy 2 pack after pit repairs as though expensive it is much better than traditional blacking.

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing is that your surveyor should be answering these questions for you. You've paid for their opinion because it is more reliable than a bunch of strangers on an internet forum. Part of the service is them explaining it to you (by phone/in person) in a way which is useful to you. 

 

If it is one of the surveyors I'm thinking it might be (based on the prose style - feel free to message me to check) then they are good at this - just ask! 

 

In terms of blacking the bottom of your boat... There are bits at the back of it which stick down further than the majority. You don't expect to knock them off regularly in normal usage so you don't expect the blacking to be completely scraped off either. Hulls rust from the inside too but it is much easier to paint the outside. Which at least reduces than chance of rusty bits above and below meeting in the middle.

 

I have two boats older than this one insured by a pretty big company (and not just for third party) who didn't ask to see surveys. 

 

One thing that would bother me slightly (depending on the kind of person selling) is that the boat is young enough to have needed RCD documentation which would probably have specified (I could be wrong here) the original thicknesses. It seems this wasn't provided for the surveyor to look at (as it sounds as though they had to guess this) 

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally - that doesn't sound like a bad survey at all. If the surveyor thought welding was required they'd have made a recommendation to that effect. 

 

Blacking is a normal part of boat maintenance so you're highly unlikely to get a huge discount for the fact it needs doing. If you asked for anything towards welding a hull the surveyor says only needs derusting and blacking I'd begin to feel sorry for the seller. 

 

Edited to add: welcome to boat ownership!

Edited by TheMenagerieAfloat
  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheMenagerieAfloat said:

Additionally - that doesn't sound like a bad survey at all. If the surveyor thought welding was required they'd have made a recommendation to that effect. 

 

Blacking is a normal part of boat maintenance so you're highly unlikely to get a huge discount for the fact it needs doing. If you asked for anything towards welding a hull the surveyor says only needs derusting and blacking I'd begin to feel sorry for the seller. 

 

Edited to add: welcome to boat ownership!

 

You seem to have managed to amass a lot of experience in a short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You seem to have managed to amass a lot of experience in a short time.

I've recently read a fair number of boat surveys. (Enough to have a pretty good guess at who wrote that one!)

 

And you only have to be moderately literate to understand that the bits of the survey above are not recommending welding. So, asking the seller to make a 'welding sized' discount may not go down too well.

 

I appreciate you enjoying being insulting and so I'm happy for you to keep doing so.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheMenagerieAfloat said:

I've recently read a fair number of boat surveys. (Enough to have a pretty good guess at who wrote that one!)

 

And you only have to be moderately literate to understand that the bits of the survey above are not recommending welding. So, asking the seller to make a 'welding sized' discount may not go down too well.

 

I appreciate you enjoying being insulting and so I'm happy for you to keep doing so.

 

At £50k for a boat of that age & in that condition it is way, way over priced anyway, add in all of its problems and it is a £35-£38k boat at best.

 

Maybe ask the OP is he is prepared to release the rest of the survey for your scrutiny.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

At £50k for a boat of that age & in that condition it is way, way over priced anyway, add in all of its problems and it is a £35-£38k boat at best.

 

Maybe ask the OP is he is prepared to release the rest of the survey for your scrutiny.

Have you seen the boat/ad for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it hasn't been looked after - that is fairly major pitting for a 2011 boat.

 

The areas that always get more rust are the through-hulls. Check the waste drains and exhaust area for rust and depth of rust.

 

I'm surprised that the surveyor didn't ask for the hull to be pressure washed. It is hard to find the deepest pits if the hull isn't cleaned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. painting the baseplate. PAINT IT! Its steel, its in water, it will rust. As Scotty said, 'I can't change the laws of physics, Jim' Its a myth that it will 'all rub off', most narrowboats might touch bottom from time to time but that's about it, A couple of years ago hit something really hard and ground my way over it. Next time the boat was hauled out I looked for the dent and scrape, not a trace of damage to the paint. Commercial boats that really do slide along the mud on smaller French and Belgian canals are painted everywhere and I reckon they know what they are doing. Apart from that the thicknesses look perfectly OK (but lift a couple of floorboards to check for rust)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is the 6mm utoxiter plate, on both my boats they were 10mm as per the badeplate, I have heard that Liverpool boats did them in 6mm and very little of the millscale was removed from the hills by light grinding 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, peterboat said:

What bothers me is the 6mm utoxiter plate, on both my boats they were 10mm as per the badeplate, I have heard that Liverpool boats did them in 6mm and very little of the millscale was removed from the hills by light grinding 

 

Liverpool boats did their uxter plates in 6mm and Collingwood still do. They'd certainly be better in 10mm but then one could argue the hull sides are only 6mm on modern narrowboats and they would be better in 10mm too. Where does one stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blackrose said:

 

Liverpool boats did their uxter plates in 6mm and Collingwood still do. They'd certainly be better in 10mm but then one could argue the hull sides are only 6mm on modern narrowboats and they would be better in 10mm too. Where does one stop?

I commented about this a couple of years ago to Jonny and he was surprised and thought it was penny pinching but your point is valid 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RedsfanUk - just a note, you have probably breached copyright by posting full chunks of the survey here.  Standard terms in, that most surveyors use, state:

 

...It must not be copied, reproduced, kept in any data bank, stored in an retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever...

Edited by The Dreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheMenagerieAfloat said:

Additionally - that doesn't sound like a bad survey at all. If the surveyor thought welding was required they'd have made a recommendation to that effect. 

 

Blacking is a normal part of boat maintenance so you're highly unlikely to get a huge discount for the fact it needs doing. If you asked for anything towards welding a hull the surveyor says only needs derusting and blacking I'd begin to feel sorry for the seller. 

 

Edited to add: welcome to boat ownership!

If it has not been well maintained since new, unless the price is already discounted, then consider that annual maintenance should cost £500 pa.

I do not like the style of the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RedsfanUk said:

Ahhh :(

Don't worry too much abt that. I mean it would be courteous to check but they'll probably be fine as a once off.

 

I'm pretty sure my surveys (I had three last year) all had similar clauses. I asked in advance and got the OK to send them to potential insurers/brokers/buyers etc. 

 

Plenty of owners of boats for sale (I looked at quite a few more than I had surveyed!) make their surveys available for potential buyers to read in person even if not by email. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone commissions and pays for a survey and a survey report doesn't at least part of the copyright then rest with the person who paid for it?

 

I've no idea as I'm not a copyright lawyer, but unlike a book or scientific paper the entire survey report is paid for by the customer so I'd have thought the surveyor's copyright clause wouldn't stand up in court. Happy to be corrected though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pay for a photographer and not get copyright on the images (unless you pay extra). A report would be analogous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.