Yes.
Not telling someone of something you know is wrong is lying in my book.

MorningBird said..
Yes.
Not telling someone of something you know is wrong is lying in my book.

Yep, agree.
I wrote up a complete history of any damage/groundings I could think off for prospective purchasers, and am holding off on a new antifoul so the surveyor can see every hull blemish or imperfection (not that there is any)
I'd rather lose a sale on the boat than lie to get one.
One could call me naive, but hey, there are worse things to be called than that.

Caveat emptor !

I think there is also a responsibility on the part of the purchaser to ask pertinent questions. Age of rigging is an obvious one. If I was to buy a boat, I would go over her very carefully and I could probably find things a non-observant owner would not know. So you need to know what you are doing and what you need to know. Ask about the rigging, osmosis repairs, any other repairs. Look at keel joints and keel bottoms. Check rudder bearings and tubes, through hulls and hull and deck joins. In the end, get a good surveyor and follow them around of possible.

Whether it is a commercial or private transaction, by contract, I believe there is a legal requirement for duty of disclosure. That is legalities.
Morals and ethics are up to the indivdual but deception is dishonesty plain and simple.

^^^ Absolutely. I've just sold a boat and the surveyor came up with a few things I wasn't aware of. They were simple fixes, but 2 could've had dire consequences and the other I already new about -as was the purchaser and was in the process off rectifying. He wasn't going to get a surveyor, and even after I strongly suggested it he still declined. His insurance co insisted though and I bet he's glad that they did.

I have a jaundiced view of surveys, I have invariably picked up more than the surveyor and not missed anything they have found.
However when selling MB the surveyor picked up that the keel bolts needed torqueing up. I had them done soon after I bought the boat and there was no movement on the nuts. Her use before I bought her was racing inside Pittwater.
I assumed that the nuts would still be tight.
After the heavy work she received in my use the keel did have some, small, movement.
Sven Runow did the survey, I've used Sven a number of times, on this occasion he earned the buyers money on the survey.

Great discussion on keel bolt nut torqueing.

Just thought it might be of use to input that tightening keel bolt nuts should not be done without a lot of prior preparations and considerations.

Keel bolts could be of numerous materials - see here a good article;

www.sailmagazine.com/diy/how-secure-is-your-keel#:~:text=Mild%20steel%3A%20It%20can%20come,have%20a%20shorter%20life%20expectancy.

Assuming that the keel bolts, washers and nuts are of stainless steel as would be typical, the first thing to ensure before you apply any torque is if the nut has galled onto the keel bolt thread. See here what galling is - essentially a metal to metal adhesion which if not managed will completely strip and destroy the thread of the nut and keel bolt and you will be in more strife than can be imagined. Stainless fasteners typically are in 304 or 316 grade for low strength, and the Bumax grades for high strength equivalent to grade 8.8 so 640MPa yield strength, or more depending on the grade. Higher grades than 8.8 are not recommended they would probably be too brittle.

www.assda.asn.au/technical-info/technical-faqs/galling-and-its-control

How to ensure the nut is not galled on the thread is virtually impossible. We went through 2 years of this assessment with our 1985 build Ross 930 having countersunk high strength grade 8.8 ss bolts holding the flange of the steel fin keel onto the hull and into the keel floors and ss backing plates and equivalent strength nuts and washers. We lubed the nuts with CorrosionX for 2 years - see here - so as to potentially avoid thread galling

www.whitworths.com.au/corrosionx-lubricant-170g

and checked the keel to hull joint each slipping in case the nuts needed to be torque tightened. They didn't. With the csunk bolt head slots not accessible under the fairing of the keel to hull joint, we would have had to dig into this joint to secure the csunk bolt head so as to re-torque the nuts.

With no movement evident we have not actioned any nut torqueing. Of course the next question is what should the nut torque magnitude in Nm be. We looked at this in the preparations but it is not a 5min job - it is not the same as the torque of an 8.8 bolt securing two steel plies together. It is less - if you are going to do this work out how much less it should be depending on your hull structure.

Our keel bolts and nuts were stamped "THE" and are made by this Taiwanese company;

www.the.com.tw/E/body.php

Not an easy website to find - they were excellent in responding to our questions.

Anyway I just thought it would be of use to post this in case anyone thought it might be a good idea to go and re-torque their ss keel bolts and inadvertently end up with a thread galling issue, without full prior preparations and complete awareness.

UncleBob said..

MorningBird said..
I have a jaundiced view of surveys, I have invariably picked up more than the surveyor and not missed anything they have found.
However when selling MB the surveyor picked up that the keel bolts needed torqueing up. I had them done soon after I bought the boat and there was no movement on the nuts. Her use before I bought her was racing inside Pittwater.
I assumed that the nuts would still be tight.
After the heavy work she received in my use the keel did have some, small, movement.
Sven Runow did the survey, I've used Sven a number of times, on this occasion he earned the buyers money on the survey.

Sven had a look at my boat after it had been hit by a large steel cruiser that had broken free of it's mooring, on behalf of Club Marine, the other parties insurer, and agreed with the damage and that the insurer should repair the damage. No such luck, Club Marine were not interested to the extent that they hung up on the conversation after telling me as it were to go f**k myself. Would I use Sven for a survey, actually I would, would I use Club Marine, ahh, NO.

I second Sven. I have used two inspectors for buying my two boats.

The first one was disappointing. They were also a shipwright. I feel like all the faults that I pointed out were the faults highlighted in the report. To make it worse it was written to say that the vessel would only be seaworthy if these faults were fixed by a qualified shipwright (i.e. the guy writing the report).


Sven on the other hand was excellent but more expensive. You get what you pay for though.


Even then though you wont find every little problem on an old boat until you start taking fittings off, drilling holes etc.

Jolene said..
The way to retension ss 34&30 keel bolt/studs is to remove and refit them. Most ss I see that are lifted have loose keels.
If you don't want to remove the studs, you should re tighten them by accessing the nuts in the keel.

The shipwright at Woolwich dock had the torque settings for the S&S34 keel so I assume they are published somewhere or he calculated them from the bolts size and material.
He and Sven agreed on the torque, they were done and Sven rechecked the keel. Each nut was tightened maybe half a turn, one or two a bit more. The torque was very high, the handle was about a metre or more long and he was giving it heaps.
When torqueing anything the torque setting is with a rotating nut. All nuts will gal themselves to some degree to the stud so it is critical to break this adhesion before torqueing. I am just about to retorque a cylinder head on one of my cars. One at a time in the order shown you undo the nut slightly and then torque to the required setting.
Same I assume with keel bolts.

MorningBird said..

Jolene said..
The way to retension ss 34&30 keel bolt/studs is to remove and refit them. Most ss I see that are lifted have loose keels.
If you don't want to remove the studs, you should re tighten them by accessing the nuts in the keel.

Same I assume with keel bolts.

NO, the keel studs can be tight through the hull. The theoretical tension can be reached on the nut without applying much clamping force to between the hull and the lead.
On the Swarbrick built ss, the studs have good clearances in the lead. So removing the stud and refitting it freely through the hull ensures the maximum clamping force between the hull and the lead with the desired torque,,, or similar results can be obtained from tightening the nut in the keel provided there is stud clearance in the lead.
I have seen the nuts in the hull tightened up to spec but the ones in the keel, on the other end of the same stud , are just finger tight . The keels also suffer from poor fitting workmanship which also adds to problems in getting the keel on tight.

PacificStar said..
imho the seller must answer all questions truthfully and to the best of his knowledge

however if the buyer does not ask, you do not need to offer any information other than the description shown in the ad...which may or may not be binding anyway

we are talking about legal obligations here...not what you may feel is 'honourable'

cheers,

Yes, there is in my opinion a big difference to disclosing and deceiving. If you hide a fault or know of a fault that is not readily noticeable, that is deceiving. I don't think you are obliged to point out every defect in an older (or any boat) if there is a reasonable expectation that a purchaser on inspection will see it.

Imho Toph and Morningbird in the last 2 posts have got to the nub of this very reasonably. Of course none of us are the judge and jury on this - hopefully we are all yacht owners and sellers of suitable ethics and honesty. And we meet buyers of similar ilk. I am onto my 13th small yacht 1/2 life refurbishment project right now and must say that as evidenced by recent sales I have made via Gumtree that there is an increasing % of trolls communicating at me during each sale process - why don't these people get a life and do something themselves in their own shed rather than out of their keyboard?

Anyway back to the question, imho surveyors have a limited time to do their inspections otherwise their costs would be prohibitive. So with time issues and access issues of course they are going to miss aspects that a competent mid-long term owner would be aware of.

So Toph's disclosing or deceiving terminology is an excellent way to put it - imho deceiving should not be entered into.

The notion in Morningbird's last sentence above is what would be hoped all owners would abide by.

In smaller yachts where surveyors are not cost effective in the buyers budget, the disclosure onus becomes a lot more critical. For example I bought a very early build Marauder 24 in the mid -late 80s and went through the above water inspections during my first visit, then made an offer based on slipping which was accepted, then did the slipping inspection process myself - I was well aware of the yacht design including encapsulated lead keel so fully glass fibre contained within the hull and keel mould - to arrive at the slip to inspect the hull, rudder and keel, to find the trim tab not there. I am not sure how many Marauder 24s were built with the trim tab on the keel but there mustn't have been many. I was too far into the deal $ wise (I was up for slipping costs) to walk away and agreed to the purchase, assisting with the antifouling at the slipping also. Next slipping proceeded to fill in the trim tab geometry with ply and epoxy glass and an oregon timber piece dynabolted including epoxy glue into and down the rear of the keel square section where the trim tab was. The shaft of the trim tab was obviously long before removed, and the hole in the hull glassed in and over. So imho that was deceiving deception.

Anyway I realise this would surely be a one-off situation but thought it would be useful to post it as an example of deception.