What boat for me?
 

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

12. for now, no price range limitations.


I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.

What boat for me?
 

Catamaran or tri for sure.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

12. for now, no price range limitations.


I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.

What boat for me?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

12. for now, no price range limitations.


I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.



http://tinylink.com/?cr3JqCf4ug

Tartan 37. Head and shoulders over any Endeavour ever built, fairly shoal
draft with the cb, there are always a few of them out there, but not a lot,
and it has a skeg hung rudder, and a real pilot berth if you're ever
considering serious offshore work. As a bonus, a good turn of speed.

John Cairns

What boat for me?
 

Nice lines too...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"John Cairns" wrote in message
. ..

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

12. for now, no price range limitations.


I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.



http://tinylink.com/?cr3JqCf4ug

Tartan 37. Head and shoulders over any Endeavour ever built, fairly shoal
draft with the cb, there are always a few of them out there, but not a
lot, and it has a skeg hung rudder, and a real pilot berth if you're ever
considering serious offshore work. As a bonus, a good turn of speed.

John Cairns

What boat for me?
 

Ditto on the Tartan 37. It was one our first picks for a family boat
and they are nicely priced. We looked at one with a recent refit at
70K. It was just short on space, but a beautiful boat. More than a few
on the market, but good ones have had a lot of work done and owners
want some payback. Beautiful boat.

A less costly, but still wonderful boat right at the 35 foot mark is
the Pearson 35. Some had draft just over 4 feet or so.
http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/p...g_id=1523&url=

Another example...
http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/p..._id=55169&url=

Another favorite of mine is the Cape Dory 33, less than 5 foot draft
and a very sweet, but tough cruiser. These have held up amazingly well
over the years.
http://tinyurl.com/dubj2

RB
35s5
NY

What boat for me?
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Another example...
http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/p..._id=55169&url=

I believe he wanted a sloop rig. This Pearson is a yawl.

What boat for me?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

12. for now, no price range limitations.


I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.



http://tinylink.com/?ayx5UtyYFc

This one is even in your neck of the woods, looks to be priced in the
fixer-upper range.

http://tinylink.com/?gDImUn3CCO

As you can see from this example in Chicago, plenty of wood to fill your
need.

John Cairns

What boat for me?
 

I believe he wanted a sloop rig. This Pearson is a yawl.


Most of the 35's were sloops, Jonathan. I was just showing the lines of
the boat, not the rig on that particular boat.


RB
35s5
NY

What boat for me?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

Now Frank--think of it this way: if you were a sailor from a climate
somewhat north of warm, and your boat was on the hard under a blanket of
snow, what would you be doing? If you were lucky enough to be gathered with
friends and sailing associates, wouldn't you be sitting at a bar somewhere,
kibbutzing about such things as chicken plucking, gay movies, Ebay,
politics, and Doug's legitimate address? Okay, perhaps not those things
exactly, but you might--and the emphasis is on *might*--talk about boats.
Considering that you've just spent the last summer doing just that, other
topics might creep into the conversation, doncha think? That's okay--you're
still relatively new here.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

Is there any other boat than the Beneteau 35s5 in this size range? From the
preponderance of posts over the past two months, one would certainly believe
that to be the case.


2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

Uh oh--there goes the 35s5. Damn.


3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

Boats don't have sticks underneath, Frank. They are generally on top, not
down below. The stick is . . . . oh, never mind. Okay, we've established
that you need a Scheel keel, a shallow draft fin with bulb or wing, or a
keel/centerboard boat.


4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

Oh, what a shame--Bubbles will be so disappointed at the lack of a theatre
with a megawatt subwoofer and satellite speakers. But you apparently do
need some interior volume and a few liveaboard amenities, if not the full
Monty.


5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

Screens, then. And ports and hatches--lots of those.


6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

You never sail in wind over 10 kts. Okay, but you might reconsider doing
so, considering that Ma Nature doesn't really cater to your personal whims.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

How about a full keel? Nothing will touch the rudder on one of those?


8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

Whose age? Yours or the boat's? :-)


9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

Definitely not a 35s5, which is the fastest thing on the water these days,
according to someone.


10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

Probably just that you have taste and a sense of aesthetics. Those latest
boats with those pseudo-Euro arytenoid transoms are futt buckin' ugly.


11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

Oh sure--everyone would. It's just unlikely with a sailboat, however,
unless you don't mind some lee helm to weather.

12. for now, no price range limitations.

May we assume you're willing to pay upwards of several hundred thousand for
this boat, or is there really a limitation but you're unwilling to state it?
IF the former, I've got a whole shopping list of boats for you. IF the
latter, we're going to be a bit more constricted. For the sake of this
discussion, I'll assume the latter, at least until you indicate otherwise.

I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.

My suggestions:

1) Ericson 35--draws 5', reasonably fast, good looking, ample
accommodations for a couple plus an occasional guest or two.

2) Ericson 38--draws 5'6", fast, good looking, ample accommodations for
four.

3) Tartan 37--keel/centerboard, enabling some serious gunkholing in a
fairly large boat, fast, good looking, and ample accommodations for a couple
plus guests.

4) Pacific Seacraft Crealock 37--draws 5'6", moderately fast, attractive,
ample accommodations for a couple, even if a bit beam-challenged, built to
go anywhere.

5) Pearson 365 sloop (some were ketches)--draws 4'6", moderately fast,
attractive, ample accommodations for a couple plus guests, solid coastal
cruiser.

6) Irwin 37-38 (may be hard to find a sloop, but some were made)--draws 5',
ain't fast, ain't attractive, accommodations for four ample folks plus an
occasional guest or two, and you'll need your abilities with fiberglass on
this one. Irwins were not terribly well-constructed in this size range.
Despite that, you can see them everywhere, including crossing oceans.
(shudder!)

There are more, but this is a start. I'm sure others have good suggestions
as well.

But it's just a damned shame that the 35s5--best boat ever created--doesn't
meet your needs. Think of it: fast as an offshore powerboat, better
looking than Brittney Spears, PHRF of -4000, accommodations for dozens,
including a toddler, fine French joinerwork, and did I mention better
looking than Brittney Spears? OH, and it has a by-God swim platform.
Please reconsider . . .

Max

What boat for me?
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:24:17 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .

Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

Now Frank--think of it this way: if you were a sailor from a climate
somewhat north of warm, and your boat was on the hard under a blanket of
snow.......

I certainly hope I never have to find out what I would do in that
circumstance! I bought that 8.7 in Warwick, Rhode Island, in January
and I remember seeing all those boats crammed in together with winter
nasty all over them and thinking this is not for me. By early Feb, it
was trucked down, commissioned and we were spending nights on the Gulf
Islands.



.......you're still relatively new here.

Well, not really, just in and out going back maybe five years or
better. If you decide not to participate in the incessant Boobster
trolls or the political debates or diatribes, you don't get to post
often unless you start the thread.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

Is there any other boat than the Beneteau 35s5 in this size range? From the
preponderance of posts over the past two months, one would certainly believe
that to be the case.


I was hoping there might be something else.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

Uh oh--there goes the 35s5. Damn.


3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

Boats don't have sticks underneath, Frank. They are generally on top, not
down below. The stick is . . . . oh, never mind. Okay, we've established
that you need a Scheel keel, a shallow draft fin with bulb or wing, or a
keel/centerboard boat.

Sure. I never considered a keel/centerboard before, but, respected
builders like Hinkley and Bristol have done that so why not. And I
prefer to avoid the wing. In my area and with my propensity to ignore
charts, I will run aground regularly despite a shallow draft wing.
Wings are harder to get off not repsonding to one of the methods, that
is put the boat into a hard heel reducing the centerline dimension.
The wing increases it. I do at least check the tide charts to assess
my chances of getting off or spending the night and have always kept a
can of Dinty Moore beef stew aboard just in case.


4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

Oh, what a shame--Bubbles will be so disappointed at the lack of a theatre
with a megawatt subwoofer and satellite speakers. But you apparently do
need some interior volume and a few liveaboard amenities, if not the full
Monty.

You see, my eyes and ears are old enough that the extra money invested
to get that incremental performance is wasted. I still can't see or
hear it very well. It is a blessing in a way.



5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

Screens, then. And ports and hatches--lots of those.


6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

You never sail in wind over 10 kts.

Certainly have. That boat was stiff. I would estimate that carrying
a 150 and a full main that thing would take 15-18 with higher gusts,
not round up and not take the lee rail awash. Now fast it wasn't.
But it was a good boat overall.

Hey, if I could knock about a foot off the draft, the Columbia 10.7
would be on the list. At least I already know all the modifications
and improvements that would need to be made. That Alan Payne guy did
a pretty good job but he screwed up a couple of things.

Okay, but you might reconsider doing
so, considering that Ma Nature doesn't really cater to your personal whims.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

How about a full keel? Nothing will touch the rudder on one of those?


8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

Whose age? Yours or the boat's? :-)


9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

Definitely not a 35s5, which is the fastest thing on the water these days,
according to someone.


10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

Probably just that you have taste and a sense of aesthetics. Those latest
boats with those pseudo-Euro arytenoid transoms are futt buckin' ugly.


11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

Oh sure--everyone would. It's just unlikely with a sailboat, however,
unless you don't mind some lee helm to weather.

12. for now, no price range limitations.

May we assume you're willing to pay upwards of several hundred thousand for
this boat....

You may assume that but you would be wrong.


or is there really a limitation but you're unwilling to state it?
IF the former, I've got a whole shopping list of boats for you. IF the
latter, we're going to be a bit more constricted. For the sake of this
discussion, I'll assume the latter, at least until you indicate otherwise.

Wise choice

I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.

My suggestions:

1) Ericson 35--draws 5', reasonably fast, good looking, ample
accommodations for a couple plus an occasional guest or two.

2) Ericson 38--draws 5'6", fast, good looking, ample accommodations for
four.

3) Tartan 37--keel/centerboard, enabling some serious gunkholing in a
fairly large boat, fast, good looking, and ample accommodations for a couple
plus guests.

4) Pacific Seacraft Crealock 37--draws 5'6", moderately fast, attractive,
ample accommodations for a couple, even if a bit beam-challenged, built to
go anywhere.

5) Pearson 365 sloop (some were ketches)--draws 4'6", moderately fast,
attractive, ample accommodations for a couple plus guests, solid coastal
cruiser.

6) Irwin 37-38 (may be hard to find a sloop, but some were made)--draws 5',
ain't fast, ain't attractive, accommodations for four ample folks plus an
occasional guest or two, and you'll need your abilities with fiberglass on
this one. Irwins were not terribly well-constructed in this size range.
Despite that, you can see them everywhere, including crossing oceans.
(shudder!)

There are more, but this is a start. I'm sure others have good suggestions
as well.

Some very good choices as are those from the other respondees,
although the Irwins have never impressed me and my perception of the
Pacific Seacraft Crealock 37 tends to be that it is pricey and more
suited to passage than coastal cruising that just might be perception.


But it's just a damned shame that the 35s5--best boat ever created--doesn't
meet your needs. Think of it: fast as an offshore powerboat, better
looking than Brittney Spears, PHRF of -4000, accommodations for dozens,
including a toddler, fine French joinerwork, and did I mention better
looking than Brittney Spears? OH, and it has a by-God swim platform.
Please reconsider . . .

I've tried. I just can't seem to warm up to it. I'll keep trying.

Max

What boat for me?
 

Check out the Pearson 37. It has a great cockpit
which should be a key consideration. The only
weakness is the lack of opening portlights, which
would be a good project for you. Many of the boat
have had this mod done--which makes the boat
close to perfect.

http://www.practical-sailor.com/sample/boatreview1.html
http://pearsoninfo.net/37/37.htm

I've seen them sell from between $20k and $40k.

The J-37 is a sweet boat also--at about twice the
money.
http://www.jcruiser.org/37/J37.htm

My recommendation is to get a boat that does not need
much work so you can spend more time sailing. You will
have plenty of maintenance work to keep you busy.



Bart


Frank Boettcher wrote:
Well I'm going to attempt to get a thread going that actually has a
little bit to do with sailing. And maybe provide some initial
direction for my search. In the last couple of days we have had
chicken pluckin stories, gay theme movies, Ebay woes, a little current
lib/conserv debate and an informal post in survey about concern for
Doug's truthfulness regarding his address (who cares, BTW). Must be
January.

So I need a boat. I'll give minimum specs and you suggest some
classic or not so classic plastic.

1. I would like something in the 35 plus or minus foot range, sloop
rigged, aft cockpit.

2. I'm a woodworker by hobby, experienced with glass work and custom
painting, good with plumbing, electrical, mechanical and enjoy
bringing things back from the brink, so a fixer upper is fine, in fact
desired. This indicates that age is not a factor.

3. I sail in the world of many sand bars, with desitinations,
anchorages, and islands that require no deep stick under a boat. Like
to keep draft to less than five feet, preferably much less.

4. I'm not going to live aboard, however trips of several weeks to a
month at a time are probable, so living amentities or the potential to
install the same are somewhat important. ( this does not mean room for
a home theatre)

5.I sail in hot, wet land. I don't care about AC but want good
cross and top hatch ventilation (screenable, those mosquitos like hot,
wet land also)

6. WHile I like performance, I would give up a half knot or so for
stout. Keep in mind, I had a Columbia 8.7 for a long time and failed
to ever bury her lee rail. I liked that.

7. Give slight preference to at least partially skeg protected
rudder.

8. I think the change to more beam that took place in the late
seventies to early eighties was a good thing. This indicates that age
might be a factor.

9. PHRF not important. I don't want a dog but when I race, I prefer
to crew on someone else's boat. And for some reason, I can't tell the
difference whether I'm going 6 knots or 5.5 knots in the big scheme of
things. It is the perception of speed and power that matter.

10. I prefer classic lines. The spaceship look of the later Hunters,
and anyone who is following in those footsteps, turns me off. Must be
my age.

11. prefer wheel steering but would retrofit. Most 35's would have it
anyway. Would retrofit to rack and pinion. That is one of the things
I can agree with Boob, Swab, matrix inhabitant, etc. It is absolutely
slick and very responsive with great feedback. But I would like a
close to nuetral (weather) helm on a full speed beam reach.

12. for now, no price range limitations.


I may never get there, but who knows, so give me your suggestion and
I'll check it out maybe add it to the search list. And I won't blast
your submission, just quietly add it to the list or reject it. Of
course, more than likely you will blast each others.


On my list so far:

Endeavour 35 - meets most requirements. Downside - draft pushes 5'
and there are not a lot of them out there available. May be some
other things, I have not done a complete analysis.

What boat for me?
 

Maxprop wrote:
There are more, but this is a start. I'm sure others have good suggestions
as well.


How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??

But it's just a damned shame that the 35s5--best boat ever created--doesn't
meet your needs. Think of it: fast as an offshore powerboat, better
looking than Brittney Spears, PHRF of -4000, accommodations for dozens,
including a toddler, fine French joinerwork, and did I mention better
looking than Brittney Spears? OH, and it has a by-God swim platform.
Please reconsider . . .


I've been curious... how does one swim on a platform? I've
always thought you had to be in the water.

DSK

What boat for me?
 

How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??


I wonder if Doug has ever seen a good Irwin.

RB
35s5
NY

What boat for me?
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
There are more, but this is a start. I'm sure others have good
suggestions as well.


How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??

I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but they are in the same resale
price range. While the Ericsons are well-built, performance-type cruisers,
the Irwins are big-ass bathtub-like cruisers with lots of interior space and
substandard construction. Amazingly they resell very well. People seem to
be unable to look beyond the voluminous interior. A friend owned a 37'
Irwin up until this past fall--we tried repeatedly to bury the rail on the
damn thing, but never could--not even in 30+kts. That sort of stiffness
tends to instill confidence in those who are too ignorant to realize just
how poorly constructed they are.


But it's just a damned shame that the 35s5--best boat ever
created--doesn't meet your needs. Think of it: fast as an offshore
powerboat, better looking than Brittney Spears, PHRF of -4000,
accommodations for dozens, including a toddler, fine French joinerwork,
and did I mention better looking than Brittney Spears? OH, and it has a
by-God swim platform. Please reconsider . . .


I've been curious... how does one swim on a platform? I've always thought
you had to be in the water.

Ask Bubbles. My boat ain't got one.

Max

What boat for me?
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??


I wonder if Doug has ever seen a *good Irwin.*

I believe that is an oxymoron.

Max

What boat for me?
 

I wonder if Doug has ever seen a *good Irwin.*



I believe that is an oxymoron.


FYI, there are some BAD Irwins out there and some very good ones. I've
brokered both. Both ericson and Irwin are known for bad decks. In fact
I've never seen an older Ericson with dry decks.

RB
35s5
NY

What boat for me?
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??


I wonder if Doug has ever seen a good Irwin.

RB
35s5
NY


There is no such thing as a good Irwin...

What boat for me?
 

Maxprop wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

There are more, but this is a start. I'm sure others have good
suggestions as well.


How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??


I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but they are in the same resale
price range. While the Ericsons are well-built, performance-type cruisers,
the Irwins are big-ass bathtub-like cruisers with lots of interior space and
substandard construction. Amazingly they resell very well. People seem to
be unable to look beyond the voluminous interior. A friend owned a 37'
Irwin up until this past fall--we tried repeatedly to bury the rail on the
damn thing, but never could--not even in 30+kts.

Glad to hear he finally got rid of that leaky thing...hope they got
a better one....
That sort of stiffness
tends to instill confidence in those who are too ignorant to realize just
how poorly constructed they are.


But it's just a damned shame that the 35s5--best boat ever
created--doesn't meet your needs. Think of it: fast as an offshore
powerboat, better looking than Brittney Spears, PHRF of -4000,
accommodations for dozens, including a toddler, fine French joinerwork,
and did I mention better looking than Brittney Spears? OH, and it has a
by-God swim platform. Please reconsider . . .


I've been curious... how does one swim on a platform? I've always thought
you had to be in the water.


Ask Bubbles. My boat ain't got one.

Max

What boat for me?
 

NY

There is no such thing as a good Irwin...


You're education on boats is based on heresay. Some Irwins held up
nicely, while others are plagued by soft decks and worse. Ive brokered
two Irwins (one 31 was very nice) and seen five more at least. On the
other hand every older Ericson I've ever seen had deck issues. I
would't buy either unless I was in Scotty's sad shoes...and even then
I'd still wait and buy a Pearson
The current Irwin I'm selling is a disaster.


RB
35s5
NY

What boat for me?
 

How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??




Maxprop wrote:
I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but they are in the same
resale price range.

Well, that just goes to show that the marketplace ain't
everything. Irwins were well advertised and mass numbers
were built, so they have a type of appeal (familiarity?) and
for some types of sailor they are practical boats.

.... While the Ericsons are well-built,
performance-type cruisers, the Irwins are big-ass bathtub-like
cruisers with lots of interior space and substandard construction.

No, Irwin built a number of racier boats too... they even
called some of them "competition" models. Some of them sail
well and the K/CB models might make the start of a pretty
good shoal-draft low-budget fun cruiser.

Ted Irwin was a top racing skipper in his day, he had the
Irwin factory built a number of custom boats for him and
these were the basis of a few production models.


Amazingly they resell very well. People seem to be unable to look
beyond the voluminous interior.

Well, that's a desirable feature, no? Reflected in the
marketplace?

... A friend owned a 37' Irwin up until
this past fall--we tried repeatedly to bury the rail on the damn
thing, but never could--not even in 30+kts.


No spinnaker, I take it.....

katy wrote:
Glad to hear he finally got rid of that leaky thing...hope they got a
better one....

Lots & lots of boats on the market right now, that's fer shure.


.... That sort of stiffness
tends to instill confidence in those who are too ignorant to realize
just how poorly constructed they are.

High initial stability is also a desirable feature,
reflected in the marketplace... but I happen to agree that
the overal worth of a boat is more subtle & complex than
that. As far as I care, let them all buy Irwins... it will
leave more choices for me.

Actually, a good friend of mine is probably going to buy one
of the center-cockpit Irwin 37s for a live-aboard...
basically a semi-portable waterfront condo. Not likely he'll
ever take the thing out of the ICW and the budget picture
makes more sense than real estate in his neighborhood.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

What boat for me?
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
NY


There is no such thing as a good Irwin...


You're education on boats is based on heresay. Some Irwins held up
nicely, while others are plagued by soft decks and worse. Ive brokered
two Irwins (one 31 was very nice) and seen five more at least. On the
other hand every older Ericson I've ever seen had deck issues. I
would't buy either unless I was in Scotty's sad shoes...and even then
I'd still wait and buy a Pearson
The current Irwin I'm selling is a disaster.


RB
35s5
NY

My education on Irwin's is based on knowinf several people who
have/had the,....and on the opinion, albeit hearsay, of boat
specialists....

What boat for me?
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...
I wonder if Doug has ever seen a *good Irwin.*



I believe that is an oxymoron.


FYI, there are some BAD Irwins out there and some very good ones. I've
brokered both.

Even the larger Irwins--those in the 50'+ range--have serious construction
issues. Ted Irwin didn't build these boats with the same philosophy as the
higher-end builders, and it shows. If you've brokered "good" Irwins, I'd
suggest you were looking more at condition than quality of construction.

Both ericson and Irwin are known for bad decks.

So are C&C, Tartan, Catalina, Hunter, and myriad others. Any boat with a
wood core of any type in the deck layup faces that problem. Irwins, unlike
Ericsons, made some things horribly cheaply, such as locker access covers
on the side decks. Some are so thin that just stepping on them makes them
crack, and a heavy individual will go right through them. You won't find
that on an Ericson.

In fact
I've never seen an older Ericson with dry decks.

I've never seen any older boat with a wood core in the deck remain dry; not
even the end-grain balsa cores. A friend's Tartan 34 is so wet over the
forepeak that it squishes when walked upon. Irwins are no worse than others
in this regard, but the glasswork and layup quality just isn't in the same
league as more expensive boats.

Max

What boat for me?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...

Glad to hear he finally got rid of that leaky thing...hope they got a
better one....

They bought a Moorings 445, ten years out of charter. It's essentially a
Beneteau 440, built for Moorings yacht charters, and it's showing its age a
bit. But it's quite solid. They'll make it look good.

Max

What boat for me?
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
How can you mention Ericsons and Irwins in the same post??




Maxprop wrote:
I know it's a stretch of the imagination, but they are in the same
resale price range.

Well, that just goes to show that the marketplace ain't everything. Irwins
were well advertised and mass numbers were built, so they have a type of
appeal (familiarity?) and for some types of sailor they are practical
boats.

.... While the Ericsons are well-built, performance-type cruisers,
the Irwins are big-ass bathtub-like cruisers with lots of interior space
and substandard construction.

No, Irwin built a number of racier boats too... they even called some of
them "competition" models. Some of them sail well and the K/CB models
might make the start of a pretty good shoal-draft low-budget fun cruiser.

You're right, of course, but I was suggesting the cruising boats for the
original poster. The Irwin Citations are actually fairly fast boats, if not
particularly attractive IMO.

Ted Irwin was a top racing skipper in his day, he had the Irwin factory
built a number of custom boats for him and these were the basis of a few
production models.

I wasn't aware that the production boats were based upon his personal racing
machines, but I'm not surprised.

Amazingly they resell very well. People seem to be unable to look
beyond the voluminous interior.

Well, that's a desirable feature, no? Reflected in the marketplace?

... A friend owned a 37' Irwin up until this past fall--we tried
repeatedly to bury the rail on the damn thing, but never could--not even
in 30+kts.


No spinnaker, I take it.....

Yup, but it was too small for the boat. It came off his earlier O'Day 35.


katy wrote:
Glad to hear he finally got rid of that leaky thing...hope they got a
better one....

Lots & lots of boats on the market right now, that's fer shure.

They had put a bundle into the Irwin--new sails, electronics, folding wheel,
a complete set of new bronze ports, linear polyurethane paint on the
topsides, deck, and house, new canvas dodger and bimini, and on and on.
Their price was substantially above the average for Irwin 37s, and they got
it almost immediately. We were surprised at how rapidly the boat sold,
considering the price.


.... That sort of stiffness
tends to instill confidence in those who are too ignorant to realize
just how poorly constructed they are.

High initial stability is also a desirable feature, reflected in the
marketplace... but I happen to agree that the overal worth of a boat is
more subtle & complex than that. As far as I care, let them all buy
Irwins... it will leave more choices for me.

Actually, a good friend of mine is probably going to buy one of the
center-cockpit Irwin 37s for a live-aboard... basically a semi-portable
waterfront condo. Not likely he'll ever take the thing out of the ICW and
the budget picture makes more sense than real estate in his neighborhood.

They are not unlike the Morgan Out Island series of boats--lots of interior
volume for the buck. I'd have to concede that the Irwin 37 is probably a
better sailor than the Morgans, however, and somewhat better looking.

Max

What boat for me?
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:43:31 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wonder if Doug has ever seen a *good Irwin.*





I've never seen any older boat with a wood core in the deck remain dry; not
even the end-grain balsa cores. A friend's Tartan 34 is so wet over the
forepeak that it squishes when walked upon. Irwins are no worse than others
in this regard, but the glasswork and layup quality just isn't in the same
league as more expensive boats.

Max

As a sample of one, my experience has been that if a manufacturer puts
fasteners into the core without going all the way through, you are
much more likely to get core rot. I repaired quite a bit of it and
found it all related to that practice. I had a hatch cowl, head
ventilator, several escutcheon plates, and some others which were all
caulk and screw into the core. All eventually resulted in core rot.
When I repaired it I converted all of those to through bolt. I never
had to repair any more core rot. Sure did slice a lot of balsa on my
band saw to make the repairs. Kind of like slicing loaves of bread on
the end grain.

I wont even put a canvas snap into the core since that experience. If
I want a cover, I'll make a decorative teak backer, through bolt it
and then put the snaps into it.

What boat for me?
 

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:43:31 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wonder if Doug has ever seen a *good Irwin.*





I've never seen any older boat with a wood core in the deck remain dry;
not
even the end-grain balsa cores. A friend's Tartan 34 is so wet over the
forepeak that it squishes when walked upon. Irwins are no worse than
others
in this regard, but the glasswork and layup quality just isn't in the same
league as more expensive boats.

Max

As a sample of one, my experience has been that if a manufacturer puts
fasteners into the core without going all the way through, you are
much more likely to get core rot. I repaired quite a bit of it and
found it all related to that practice. I had a hatch cowl, head
ventilator, several escutcheon plates, and some others which were all
caulk and screw into the core. All eventually resulted in core rot.
When I repaired it I converted all of those to through bolt. I never
had to repair any more core rot. Sure did slice a lot of balsa on my
band saw to make the repairs. Kind of like slicing loaves of bread on
the end grain.

I wont even put a canvas snap into the core since that experience. If
I want a cover, I'll make a decorative teak backer, through bolt it
and then put the snaps into it.

Damned if I can recall what manufacturer did this, but I recall seeing a
boat on which all thru-bolts were first drilled oversize, then filled with
solid resin--epoxy, I presume--and then redrilled to the proper, smaller
diameter. No way any moisture could get into the core with that system. I
have Airex foam cores in my hull and deck, but I still do the same thing if
installing something. It makes for a lot of work, but it's a safe system.
I also overdrill holes into the core through just one laminate (snaps, for
example) and fill them with epoxy, too. Probably overkill in my case, since
Airex won't absorb moisture at all.

Max

What boat for me? (long)
 

I've never seen any older boat with a wood core in the deck remain dry;
not
even the end-grain balsa cores.

I have.

And it's not an issue of "even" the end-grain balsa.
End-grain balsa has several advantages as core. It's light.
The end grain forms a very good bond to fiberglass without a
lot of fuss, fancy materials, or careful workmanship
(although it's much better if these are applied). The end
grain isolates moisture instead of wicking it the full
length of the structure.

As for plywood "core" what's the point? Why not get plywood
that's strong enough in the first place, instead of adding a
skin of something that is heavier & not as resilient & will
trap water in the wood? Actually, the one exception is the
upper face of a deck. Fiberglass is a lot more abrasion
resistant than wood, and makes a great deck surface.


... A friend's Tartan 34 is so wet over the
forepeak that it squishes when walked upon. Irwins are no worse than
others
in this regard, but the glasswork and layup quality just isn't in the same
league as more expensive boats.


Well, any fiberglass lay-up with core that is not kept
sealed will end up squishy, no matter what the original
workmanship.

This is why some people hate cored fiberglass.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote...
As a sample of one, my experience has been that if a manufacturer puts
fasteners into the core without going all the way through, you are
much more likely to get core rot.

Pretty much guaranteed IMHO if that fitting has any stress
at all on it.

... I repaired quite a bit of it and
found it all related to that practice. I had a hatch cowl, head
ventilator, several escutcheon plates, and some others which were all
caulk and screw into the core. All eventually resulted in core rot.
When I repaired it I converted all of those to through bolt.

Ummm, I hate to tell you this, but that's actually worse for
cored lay-ups.

Balsa core is not very strong in compression. Actually,
neither is plywood, but it's stronger than balsa. When you
tighten the bolts, you compress the core. When the fitting
is loaded, the core compresses further (think stantion base
plate) and then when the load is removed, it doesn't expand
again (or at least, not 100%). Now the bolts are very
slightly loose. Repeat. Now water is guaranteed to be let in.

Frank I am very glad to hear you have not had any rot in
your core since making your repair. But that isn't the
textbook method and it's not any more work to do it that way.

The answer to this problem is to not have any core in the
area of fittings.

The original builder, if putting in core in the first place,
should cut the core to a template around all fittings, and
taper the core down all edges so that the two skins come
together and can be reinforced easily in the area of highly
loaded fittings. Ideally the edgees should have a double
radius, S-curve.

Look at a Morris, Oyster, or Baltic, and you will see this.
Look at an Ericson and you will see core with a flat taper
or bevel in the decks. Some eras of C&C did this as well,
but they also put in plywood or milled PVC blanks in place
too for some models in some eras. So did some other
builders. But many builders just toss the core in the mold
and slap cloth over it.


Maxprop wrote:
Damned if I can recall what manufacturer did this, but I recall seeing a
boat on which all thru-bolts were first drilled oversize, then filled with
solid resin--epoxy, I presume--and then redrilled to the proper, smaller
diameter.

The problem with this method of repair is that you're
cutting away the strength memeber... the skin. But the epoxy
filler is stronger in compression than the core, so that's good.

One method to dig out the core & leave the skin is to take
an Allen wrench and put it in your drill, and work it around
the edges of the existing hole. Put tape under, fill with
epoxy (I use hi density filler mixed in), then drill out the
original sized bolt hole.


.... No way any moisture could get into the core with that system.

It still can if the fitting is not bedded properly. That's
why the answer is to have solid glass in the area of fittings.

.... I
have Airex foam cores in my hull and deck, but I still do the same thing if
installing something. It makes for a lot of work, but it's a safe system.
I also overdrill holes into the core through just one laminate (snaps, for
example) and fill them with epoxy, too. Probably overkill in my case, since
Airex won't absorb moisture at all.


No, but freeze-thaw cycles will still cause progressive
delamination if any water gets into it. And Airex is also
weak in compression, thru-bolts will crush it and cause leaks.

Cored laminations are a higher level of technology than
solid glass. They're lighter, stiffer, more elastic, can be
engineered to have all kinds of desirable properties. People
who say "I hate cored fiberglass" are saying "I want my boat
to be heavier, weaker, slower, and less stable."

But cores aren't foolproof, they're not even user-friendly.
The real killer of cored structure is lack of maintenance.
How long has it been since all deck fittiings were rebedded?
Going on 2 1/2 years for me, and I'm thinking about doing it
again. But then I was raised in the old school where you do
this *every* year.

This turned out to be really long, sorry about that. But
it's an important issue. This should have come under the
"projects" thread earlier.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

What boat for me? (long)
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:11:52 -0500, DSK wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote...
As a sample of one, my experience has been that if a manufacturer puts
fasteners into the core without going all the way through, you are
much more likely to get core rot.

Pretty much guaranteed IMHO if that fitting has any stress
at all on it.

... I repaired quite a bit of it and
found it all related to that practice. I had a hatch cowl, head
ventilator, several escutcheon plates, and some others which were all
caulk and screw into the core. All eventually resulted in core rot.
When I repaired it I converted all of those to through bolt.

Ummm, I hate to tell you this, but that's actually worse for
cored lay-ups.

I disagree. see below

Balsa core is not very strong in compression. Actually,
neither is plywood, but it's stronger than balsa.

All wood is stronger in compression of the end grain than compression
of the side surface. There is less chance to develop a permanent
depression on the end grain than the side surface. And end grain
balsa is stronger in compression than side grain plywood, plus lighter
which is why it is used. Load up your cabin trunk or deck with
plywood and you have a top heavy craft requiring much more ballast to
get the centroid right. No good.

When you
tighten the bolts, you compress the core. When the fitting
is loaded, the core compresses further (think stantion base
plate) and then when the load is removed, it doesn't expand
again (or at least, not 100%). Now the bolts are very
slightly loose. Repeat. Now water is guaranteed to be let in.

If you put fasteners (which would have to be wood screws or some type
of universal thread screw) into the core once you have achieved the
appropriate torque that is pretty much it. If it moves and leaks you
don't know until the damage is done. And periodic retightening will
only strip out or weaken the bond. When you through bolt with machine
screws and nuts you can 1.) see the leak if it develops because it
will come all the way through, 2.) periodically retorque the fasteners
to tighten up the seal or remove and rebed with the ability to get a
good seal because of the use of machine screws and nuts.

Frank I am very glad to hear you have not had any rot in
your core since making your repair. But that isn't the
textbook method and it's not any more work to do it that way.

The repairs I made solved the problem in the areas they were in. I
sold the boat several years later, checked back periodically with the
new owner and they were still providing trouble free service.

The answer to this problem is to not have any core in the
area of fittings.

Good plan but most builders do not do this.

The original builder, if putting in core in the first place,
should cut the core to a template around all fittings, and
taper the core down all edges so that the two skins come
together and can be reinforced easily in the area of highly
loaded fittings. Ideally the edgees should have a double
radius, S-curve.

Look at a Morris, Oyster, or Baltic, and you will see this.
Look at an Ericson and you will see core with a flat taper
or bevel in the decks. Some eras of C&C did this as well,
but they also put in plywood or milled PVC blanks in place
too for some models in some eras. So did some other
builders. But many builders just toss the core in the mold
and slap cloth over it.

Almost everyone does it for high structural penetrations. very few do
it for the low structural connections that usually end up causing the
problems. My problems were not caused by stantions, standing rigging
chainplate penetrations, pulpits or any other high load items. Mine
were caused by low load items. Many times, after market items like
covers and cowls are attached with snaps or fasteners that are just
screwed into the core and most manufacturers don't make allowances for
these items.


Maxprop wrote:
Damned if I can recall what manufacturer did this, but I recall seeing a
boat on which all thru-bolts were first drilled oversize, then filled with
solid resin--epoxy, I presume--and then redrilled to the proper, smaller
diameter.

The problem with this method of repair is that you're
cutting away the strength memeber... the skin. But the epoxy
filler is stronger in compression than the core, so that's good.

One method to dig out the core & leave the skin is to take
an Allen wrench and put it in your drill, and work it around
the edges of the existing hole. Put tape under, fill with
epoxy (I use hi density filler mixed in), then drill out the
original sized bolt hole.


.... No way any moisture could get into the core with that system.

It still can if the fitting is not bedded properly. That's
why the answer is to have solid glass in the area of fittings.

.... I
have Airex foam cores in my hull and deck, but I still do the same thing if
installing something. It makes for a lot of work, but it's a safe system.
I also overdrill holes into the core through just one laminate (snaps, for
example) and fill them with epoxy, too. Probably overkill in my case, since
Airex won't absorb moisture at all.


No, but freeze-thaw cycles will still cause progressive
delamination if any water gets into it. And Airex is also
weak in compression, thru-bolts will crush it and cause leaks.

Cored laminations are a higher level of technology than
solid glass. They're lighter, stiffer, more elastic, can be
engineered to have all kinds of desirable properties. People
who say "I hate cored fiberglass" are saying "I want my boat
to be heavier, weaker, slower, and less stable."

But cores aren't foolproof, they're not even user-friendly.
The real killer of cored structure is lack of maintenance.
How long has it been since all deck fittiings were rebedded?
Going on 2 1/2 years for me, and I'm thinking about doing it
again. But then I was raised in the old school where you do
this *every* year.

This turned out to be really long, sorry about that. But
it's an important issue. This should have come under the
"projects" thread earlier.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

What boat for me? (long)
 

Balsa core is not very strong in compression. Actually,
neither is plywood, but it's stronger than balsa.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
All wood is stronger in compression of the end grain than compression
of the side surface.

That's true.

However, *balsa* is not stronger that way than even cheapo
pine plywood (unless of course there are gaps in the ply).



.... And end grain
balsa is stronger in compression than side grain plywood

I don't think so, but I bet there are figures out there
somewhere.

... plus lighter
which is why it is used.

Plus the bonding properties and lack of wicking.

... Load up your cabin trunk or deck with
plywood and you have a top heavy craft requiring much more ballast to
get the centroid right. No good.


Agreed, but a lot of boats are built that way. And a lot of
people assume 'heavy = strong.'


The repairs I made solved the problem in the areas they were in. I
sold the boat several years later, checked back periodically with the
new owner and they were still providing trouble free service.


Good work, then... you must have done an excellent job
bedding them. I'm never that confident, plus I really hate
deck leaks.

DSK

What boat for me? (long)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...

I've never seen any older boat with a wood core in the deck remain dry;
not
even the end-grain balsa cores.

I have.

And it's not an issue of "even" the end-grain balsa. End-grain balsa has
several advantages as core. It's light. The end grain forms a very good
bond to fiberglass without a lot of fuss, fancy materials, or careful
workmanship (although it's much better if these are applied). The end
grain isolates moisture instead of wicking it the full length of the
structure.

That was the theory behind end-grain balsa, but ultimately it didn't work.
Eventually the wood will tranfer water a great distance between lamina. It
may take quite a bit longer than with a ply core, but it will eventually
happen. A 25-30 year old balsa core will be fairly wet if exposed to water
at hardware attachment points.

As for plywood "core" what's the point? Why not get plywood that's strong
enough in the first place, instead of adding a skin of something that is
heavier & not as resilient & will trap water in the wood? Actually, the
one exception is the upper face of a deck. Fiberglass is a lot more
abrasion resistant than wood, and makes a great deck surface.

It's probably not a lot more abrasion resistant than dry teak, which makes
the best non-skid of all IMO. For those boats with ply decks, many
manufacturers covered the decks with canvas and later Dynel or fiberglass.

... A friend's Tartan 34 is so wet over the
forepeak that it squishes when walked upon. Irwins are no worse than
others
in this regard, but the glasswork and layup quality just isn't in the
same
league as more expensive boats.


Well, any fiberglass lay-up with core that is not kept sealed will end up
squishy, no matter what the original workmanship.

This is why some people hate cored fiberglass.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote...
As a sample of one, my experience has been that if a manufacturer puts
fasteners into the core without going all the way through, you are
much more likely to get core rot.

Pretty much guaranteed IMHO if that fitting has any stress at all on it.

... I repaired quite a bit of it and
found it all related to that practice. I had a hatch cowl, head
ventilator, several escutcheon plates, and some others which were all
caulk and screw into the core. All eventually resulted in core rot.
When I repaired it I converted all of those to through bolt.

Ummm, I hate to tell you this, but that's actually worse for cored
lay-ups.

Balsa core is not very strong in compression. Actually, neither is
plywood, but it's stronger than balsa. When you tighten the bolts, you
compress the core. When the fitting is loaded, the core compresses further
(think stantion base plate) and then when the load is removed, it doesn't
expand again (or at least, not 100%). Now the bolts are very slightly
loose. Repeat. Now water is guaranteed to be let in.

Frank I am very glad to hear you have not had any rot in your core since
making your repair. But that isn't the textbook method and it's not any
more work to do it that way.

The answer to this problem is to not have any core in the area of
fittings.

Well built yachts generally have this feature, such as Pacific Seacraft.


The original builder, if putting in core in the first place, should cut
the core to a template around all fittings, and taper the core down all
edges so that the two skins come together and can be reinforced easily in
the area of highly loaded fittings. Ideally the edgees should have a
double radius, S-curve.

Look at a Morris, Oyster, or Baltic, and you will see this. Look at an
Ericson and you will see core with a flat taper or bevel in the decks.
Some eras of C&C did this as well, but they also put in plywood or milled
PVC blanks in place too for some models in some eras. So did some other
builders. But many builders just toss the core in the mold and slap cloth
over it.

Those same builders never anticipated being in business years later when
those cores were soaking wet, either.

Maxprop wrote:
Damned if I can recall what manufacturer did this, but I recall seeing a
boat on which all thru-bolts were first drilled oversize, then filled
with solid resin--epoxy, I presume--and then redrilled to the proper,
smaller diameter.

The problem with this method of repair is that you're cutting away the
strength memeber... the skin. But the epoxy filler is stronger in
compression than the core, so that's good.

You're cutting away such a small diameter of the skin that I think the
result is negligible, especially if the unit of hardware being installed is
quite a bit larger. Some craftsmen recommend using an angled piece of wire
to "route out the balsa core within a 1" radius or so around the hole, and
filling that with epoxy and microballoons. I've done this on other peoples'
boats, and it seemed to work reasonably well, too. This preserves the skin,
but I was always unsure if the epoxy was getting into the voids between the
glass laminates adequately. With my overdill method, I am assured the area
is completely resin-filled. That's why I switched.

One method to dig out the core & leave the skin is to take an Allen wrench
and put it in your drill, and work it around the edges of the existing
hole. Put tape under, fill with epoxy (I use hi density filler mixed in),
then drill out the original sized bolt hole.

Hmmm, sounds familiar. See above. g



.... No way any moisture could get into the core with that system.

It still can if the fitting is not bedded properly. That's why the answer
is to have solid glass in the area of fittings.

Agreed. That's why it's worthwhile to invest in quality boats--one's that
have this feature, for example.


.... I have Airex foam cores in my hull and deck, but I still do the
same thing if installing something. It makes for a lot of work, but it's
a safe system. I also overdrill holes into the core through just one
laminate (snaps, for example) and fill them with epoxy, too. Probably
overkill in my case, since Airex won't absorb moisture at all.


No, but freeze-thaw cycles will still cause progressive delamination if
any water gets into it. And Airex is also weak in compression, thru-bolts
will crush it and cause leaks.

It's surprisingly stiff and rigid. I installed a sheet stopper on the cabin
roof, and I was preparing to route out some of the Airex and replace it with
epoxy and West System's colloidal filler, but the local glass man told me it
wouldn't be necessary with Airex. I couldn't detect any undue compression
when I tightened the fasteners. Of course I bedded them and the stopper in
polysulfide caulk, tightened only slightly until the caulk had a chance to
set up slightly, then tightened it further.

Cored laminations are a higher level of technology than solid glass.
They're lighter, stiffer, more elastic, can be engineered to have all
kinds of desirable properties. People who say "I hate cored fiberglass"
are saying "I want my boat to be heavier, weaker, slower, and less
stable."

But cores aren't foolproof, they're not even user-friendly. The real
killer of cored structure is lack of maintenance. How long has it been
since all deck fittiings were rebedded? Going on 2 1/2 years for me, and
I'm thinking about doing it again. But then I was raised in the old school
where you do this *every* year.

Then there's the school of thought that if you bed everything in
polyurethane (3M5200, for example) you'll never have to do it again. That's
true, because you'll never be *able* to do it again, and of course it will
leak with time. Terrible idea.


This turned out to be really long, sorry about that. But it's an important
issue. This should have come under the "projects" thread earlier.

I think some of us enjoy projects of this nature. And some of us are
pedantic enough to want to do it in the best possible technological manner.
Most owners are clueless. ("You mean you have to rebed those things? What
the hell . . .?")

Max

What boat for me? (long)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Balsa core is not very strong in compression. Actually, neither is
plywood, but it's stronger than balsa.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
All wood is stronger in compression of the end grain than compression
of the side surface.

That's true.

However, *balsa* is not stronger that way than even cheapo pine plywood
(unless of course there are gaps in the ply).



.... And end grain
balsa is stronger in compression than side grain plywood

I don't think so, but I bet there are figures out there somewhere.

Check out the Wooden Boat magazine archives. There is so much esoteric data
on the properties of wood as to be tedious. I'm sure this issue has been
addressed, and probably redundantly.

Max

What boat for me? (long)
 

... The end
grain isolates moisture instead of wicking it the full length of the
structure.


Maxprop wrote:
That was the theory behind end-grain balsa, but ultimately it didn't work.
Eventually the wood will tranfer water a great distance between lamina.

Yes, but "eventually" Mt Everest will be reduced to beach
sand, too. The progression of rot is much much slower with
end grain core than encapsulated plywood. I would not call
that failure, myself.


As for plywood "core" what's the point? Why not get plywood that's strong
enough in the first place, instead of adding a skin of something that is
heavier & not as resilient & will trap water in the wood? Actually, the
one exception is the upper face of a deck. Fiberglass is a lot more
abrasion resistant than wood, and makes a great deck surface.


It's probably not a lot more abrasion resistant than dry teak,

Guess it depends on how you define "a lot" and what kind of
abrasion you expose it to. Fiberglass will basically have
almost no wear at all from foot traffic. Teak will... I know
this for a fact, having just removed a 20 year old teak deck.

BTW this teak deck was screwed into balsa core, which had a
dessert-plate sized spots of rot. If it had been plywood, it
would all have gone to mush.

.... which makes
the best non-skid of all IMO.

Disagree, but then that's based on personal experience
rather than heeding the opinions of others. Heresy!


.... For those boats with ply decks, many
manufacturers covered the decks with canvas and later Dynel or fiberglass.


I've read the Dynel is supposed to be better, not used it
myself.


.... Look at an
Ericson and you will see core with a flat taper or bevel in the decks.
Some eras of C&C did this as well, but they also put in plywood or milled
PVC blanks in place too for some models in some eras. So did some other
builders.

The older Pacific Seacrafts, sure. The last ones I looked at
(2003 & 2004 models) they had deliberately built the boat
with glued-in molding & fabric liners so that you could not
see or access any part of the structure. Frustrating... and
suspicious IMHO.

I should have asked first... you know Pacific Seacraft was
bought up by a conglomerate? Personally I think they're
playing the sausage game. Nothing stays good for long.


But many builders just toss the core in the mold and slap
cloth
over it.


Those same builders never anticipated being in business years later when
those cores were soaking wet, either.


They might not have thought it made that much difference,
and couldn't afford the labor to do it right anyway.



Maxprop wrote:

Damned if I can recall what manufacturer did this, but I recall seeing a
boat on which all thru-bolts were first drilled oversize, then filled
with solid resin--epoxy, I presume--and then redrilled to the proper,
smaller diameter.

The problem with this method of repair is that you're cutting away the
strength memeber... the skin. But the epoxy filler is stronger in
compression than the core, so that's good.


You're cutting away such a small diameter of the skin that I think the
result is negligible, especially if the unit of hardware being installed is
quite a bit larger.

That's a good point. If the hardware is a lot larger, or has
at least 3 mounting holes, it's probably just fine. I was
thinking of single bolt stuff.

I also drill out areas and fill with epoxy to mount small
stuff with self-tapping screws.


No, but freeze-thaw cycles will still cause progressive delamination if
any water gets into it. And Airex is also weak in compression, thru-bolts
will crush it and cause leaks.


It's surprisingly stiff and rigid. I installed a sheet stopper on the cabin
roof, and I was preparing to route out some of the Airex and replace it with
epoxy and West System's colloidal filler, but the local glass man told me it
wouldn't be necessary with Airex. I couldn't detect any undue compression
when I tightened the fasteners. Of course I bedded them and the stopper in
polysulfide caulk, tightened only slightly until the caulk had a chance to
set up slightly, then tightened it further.


Interesting to see what the results will be. Airex and
Divinycell and Klegecell and there some new German stuff
that's supposed to be miraculous but is tediously expensive
are all less supject to compression failure, and certainly
less prone to rot ;) but they are still not strong enough
to have rigging components thru-bolted to it. It may be that
the caulk is resilient enough to keep it watertight anyway,
in your application.

If you're interested, I can recommend some fairly technical
books on composite aircraft construction, which is what I've
been studying because there aren't any books on fancy
composite boat construction. Same stuff, same issues, though.


..... The real
killer of cored structure is lack of maintenance. How long has it been
since all deck fittiings were rebedded? Going on 2 1/2 years for me, and
I'm thinking about doing it again. But then I was raised in the old school
where you do this *every* year.


Then there's the school of thought that if you bed everything in
polyurethane (3M5200, for example) you'll never have to do it again. That's
true, because you'll never be *able* to do it again, and of course it will
leak with time. Terrible idea.


I used to use 5200 for everything, and then of course had to
peel/scrape/wirebrush it off, very tedious. Now I use
4200. And I own stock in 3M.....




This turned out to be really long, sorry about that. But it's an important
issue. This should have come under the "projects" thread earlier.


I think some of us enjoy projects of this nature. And some of us are
pedantic enough to want to do it in the best possible technological manner.
Most owners are clueless. ("You mean you have to rebed those things? What
the hell . . .?")


Maybe it is pedantry, but my belief is that it's less work
to do things the right way. Especially if you don't want it
to fail at an inconvenient time.

Another of my theories is that 'if it works, it must have
been done right.' I'd like to see some of Frank's work & learn.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

What boat for me? (long)
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:07:14 -0500, DSK wrote:


Another of my theories is that 'if it works, it must have
been done right.' I'd like to see some of Frank's work & learn.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King


Pretty much beginners luck, I think,done because the yard had charged
a fortune for a small repair that did not hold several years before.

All the core repairs were done from the outside in rather than the
inside out. I don't know if this was right, but seemed to me the
primary structural layers were on the inside and I didn't want to
tamper with them. But it meant that it had to end up cosmetically
pleasing. Also meant that I had to learn how to spray catalyzed
polyurethane which was easier than I thought it would be. Did the
whole boat with Imron.

All the repairs were done with expoxy rather than polyester. I
worried about the bond between the two but it was needless worry.

Don't know the status, boat was sold again several years ago. For all
I know Katrina got it.

Frank

What boat for me? (long)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... The end grain isolates moisture instead of wicking it the full length
of the structure.


Maxprop wrote:
That was the theory behind end-grain balsa, but ultimately it didn't
work. Eventually the wood will tranfer water a great distance between
lamina.

Yes, but "eventually" Mt Everest will be reduced to beach sand, too. The
progression of rot is much much slower with end grain core than
encapsulated plywood. I would not call that failure, myself.

Your Mt. Everest analogy is not really appropriate in this case. End-grain
balsa core material will be wet during the reasonable lifespan of the boat,
whereas Mt. Everest may see the nova of our sun before becoming a beach. We
ran a moisture meter over a 22 year old C&C 36, whose topsides and deck are
cored with balsa, and there is considerable water in the deck, and some, if
not a lot, in the topsides near the hull/deck union. The moisture is
significant enough to repeatedly thwart the sale of the boat, as the owner
has discovered. Too bad--the boat is otherwise immaculate, and it's fast.



As for plywood "core" what's the point? Why not get plywood that's strong
enough in the first place, instead of adding a skin of something that is
heavier & not as resilient & will trap water in the wood? Actually, the
one exception is the upper face of a deck. Fiberglass is a lot more
abrasion resistant than wood, and makes a great deck surface.


It's probably not a lot more abrasion resistant than dry teak,

Guess it depends on how you define "a lot" and what kind of abrasion you
expose it to. Fiberglass will basically have almost no wear at all from
foot traffic. Teak will... I know this for a fact, having just removed a
20 year old teak deck.

I'm assuming that you didn't own that teak deck for the past 20 years,
therefore you may not know how it was cared for. Or perhaps you know it was
not cared for correctly. Most people are clueless as to how to care for
teak decking. Many scrub it along the rays with a stiff brush while wet
(disaster), and some sand it repeatedly to reestablish the nice brown teak
color (another disaster). I owned a ketch with a teak deck that had been
properly maintained--washed with TSP and a *string mop*, and rinsed with
brine. The boat was built in 1972, and the deck was perfect, save for a
couple of bungs that had popped and had to be replaced. The yacht
Dorade--the namesake of the famous dorade box and cowl vent--sold a few
years ago, and its original deck was completely replaced. The wood from the
removed deck was in such good shape that much of it was used to re-deck
another boat. Dorade was one of Olin Stephens' most famous designs, built
in 1929.

BTW this teak deck was screwed into balsa core, which had a dessert-plate
sized spots of rot. If it had been plywood, it would all have gone to
mush.

That may be a characteristic of balsa itself, which is generally more
impervious to rot than pine or fir. Being an exotic species, it has
genetically evolved to resist rot, which is ubiquitous in the climate where
it grows.

.... which makes the best non-skid of all IMO.

Disagree, but then that's based on personal experience rather than heeding
the opinions of others. Heresy!

Mine is based upon experience as well. Most people think teak is terrible
underfoot. If I listened to others, I'd probably dislike it too.

.... For those boats with ply decks, many manufacturers covered the decks
with canvas and later Dynel or fiberglass.


I've read the Dynel is supposed to be better, not used it myself.

When applied and painted, Dynel is really no different than cotton canvas.
Being a synthetic fabric, however, it lasts about 5 times longer than
canvas. It is harder to work with, however.


.... Look at an Ericson and you will see core with a flat taper or bevel
in the decks. Some eras of C&C did this as well, but they also put in
plywood or milled PVC blanks in place too for some models in some eras.
So did some other builders.

The older Pacific Seacrafts, sure. The last ones I looked at (2003 & 2004
models) they had deliberately built the boat with glued-in molding &
fabric liners so that you could not see or access any part of the
structure. Frustrating... and suspicious IMHO.

Sorry to hear that. I always thought they were excellent boats, if a bit
diminutive in beam and interior volume for their length. I haven't followed
them since the company was sold, but I suspect PS is facing the same
constraints other builders now face: with rising crude oil prices and
labor costs, builders must cut some corners to keep their boats in their
given price niches.

I should have asked first... you know Pacific Seacraft was bought up by a
conglomerate? Personally I think they're playing the sausage game. Nothing
stays good for long.

See above.


But many builders just toss the core in the mold and slap cloth
over it.

Some layup cloth/roving/matt on the outside and simply chopper the inside.
Did you know that several lamina in the layup schedule of Hallberg Rasseys
are choppered? Disappointed me to learn that.



Those same builders never anticipated being in business years later when
those cores were soaking wet, either.


They might not have thought it made that much difference, and couldn't
afford the labor to do it right anyway.

No doubt there was some builder ignorance involved, but I suspect many of
them knew exactly what would happen. A disgruntled ex-Sea Ray executive
told a SOUNDINGS editor that the company's policy, from the 70s on, is to
use ply in the transoms of their stern drive boats, knowing full well that
it would be soaked and soft in 20-30 years. Planned obsolescense.




Maxprop wrote:

Damned if I can recall what manufacturer did this, but I recall seeing a
boat on which all thru-bolts were first drilled oversize, then filled
with solid resin--epoxy, I presume--and then redrilled to the proper,
smaller diameter.

The problem with this method of repair is that you're cutting away the
strength memeber... the skin. But the epoxy filler is stronger in
compression than the core, so that's good.


You're cutting away such a small diameter of the skin that I think the
result is negligible, especially if the unit of hardware being installed
is quite a bit larger.

That's a good point. If the hardware is a lot larger, or has at least 3
mounting holes, it's probably just fine. I was thinking of single bolt
stuff.

I also drill out areas and fill with epoxy to mount small stuff with
self-tapping screws.


No, but freeze-thaw cycles will still cause progressive delamination if
any water gets into it. And Airex is also weak in compression, thru-bolts
will crush it and cause leaks.


It's surprisingly stiff and rigid. I installed a sheet stopper on the
cabin roof, and I was preparing to route out some of the Airex and
replace it with epoxy and West System's colloidal filler, but the local
glass man told me it wouldn't be necessary with Airex. I couldn't detect
any undue compression when I tightened the fasteners. Of course I bedded
them and the stopper in polysulfide caulk, tightened only slightly until
the caulk had a chance to set up slightly, then tightened it further.


Interesting to see what the results will be. Airex and Divinycell and
Klegecell and there some new German stuff that's supposed to be miraculous
but is tediously expensive are all less supject to compression failure,
and certainly less prone to rot ;) but they are still not strong enough
to have rigging components thru-bolted to it. It may be that the caulk is
resilient enough to keep it watertight anyway, in your application.

Guess I should have explained in more detail: in the case of the sheet
stopper, I mounted a 3/4" teak backing plate and large diameter washers
underneath, and a slightly larger-than-the-stopper 1/2" teak mounting plate
on top.


If you're interested, I can recommend some fairly technical books on
composite aircraft construction, which is what I've been studying because
there aren't any books on fancy composite boat construction. Same stuff,
same issues, though.

Probably too esoteric for my needs, but thanks anyway. While on the
subject, though, I'm surprised that honeycomb aluminum hasn't been utilized
as a core material in boats. Virtually no weight, nothing to wick mositure,
and rigid and crush-proof like a cast iron beam when between laminates. But
I suppose the stuff is really costly. I know it was (is?) used in composite
aircraft construction. There were some skis with it as a core material some
years back, and they were successful, if expensive. It was never picked up
by other manufacturers, however.

..... The real killer of cored structure is lack of maintenance. How long
has it been since all deck fittiings were rebedded? Going on 2 1/2 years
for me, and I'm thinking about doing it again. But then I was raised in
the old school where you do this *every* year.


Then there's the school of thought that if you bed everything in
polyurethane (3M5200, for example) you'll never have to do it again.
That's true, because you'll never be *able* to do it again, and of course
it will leak with time. Terrible idea.


I used to use 5200 for everything, and then of course had to
peel/scrape/wirebrush it off, very tedious. Now I use 4200. And I own
stock in 3M.....

Our ketch had a deck prism through the teak deck right over the head of the
V-berth, and of course it leaked as all deck prisms eventually do. Trying
to remove it proved a bit much for my self control. I probably said a few
things that caused mothers to rush their kids out of the parking lot. But
eventually I found the former owner and asked with what he re-bedded the
damn thing. 5200, of course. 20 hours of hard labor, swearing, and bloody
fingers later it was re-bedded and leak-free. People who bed with
polyurethane should be glued to the mast approximately at the spreaders with
the stuff and left there for the cormorants to roost upon. It's great for
hull to deck bonding, however.


This turned out to be really long, sorry about that. But it's an
important issue. This should have come under the "projects" thread
earlier.


I think some of us enjoy projects of this nature. And some of us are
pedantic enough to want to do it in the best possible technological
manner. Most owners are clueless. ("You mean you have to rebed those
things? What the hell . . .?")


Maybe it is pedantry, but my belief is that it's less work to do things
the right way. Especially if you don't want it to fail at an inconvenient
time.

Another of my theories is that 'if it works, it must have been done
right.' I'd like to see some of Frank's work & learn.

Ditto.

Max

What boat for me? (long)
 

... Fiberglass will basically have almost no wear at all from
foot traffic. Teak will... I know this for a fact, having just removed a
20 year old teak deck.


Maxprop wrote:
I'm assuming that you didn't own that teak deck for the past 20 years,
therefore you may not know how it was cared for. Or perhaps you know it was
not cared for correctly.

The latter. Well, that may be unduly harsh... I have pretty
good evidence that it received no care at all.


... Most people are clueless as to how to care for
teak decking.

Sure. Most people are clueless, period.


....The yacht
Dorade--the namesake of the famous dorade box and cowl vent--sold a few
years ago, and its original deck was completely replaced. The wood from the
removed deck was in such good shape that much of it was used to re-deck
another boat. Dorade was one of Olin Stephens' most famous designs, built
in 1929.


Yep and a design worth studying IMHO. As for teak, one of
the reasons it's used so much on boats is that it's ppretty,
it's dense (fairly strong in several different aspects), and
it's very resistant to rot.

The teak that I removed was sought after by several
craftsmen I know, the wood itself was in great shape;
although it had caulk stuck to it & came up in pieces less
than 3' long. But hey, free teak! If I wasn't seriously
downsizing, I'd have kept it all myself.



.... which makes the best non-skid of all IMO.

Disagree, but then that's based on personal experience rather than heeding
the opinions of others. Heresy!


Mine is based upon experience as well. Most people think teak is terrible
underfoot.

Hardly.
I've very rarely heard anybody not rave about teak. In fact
I have never heard anybody else say it's poor nonskid. Ask
over at rec.boats.cruising and see what they say.

However I've sailed a lot of boats with teak decks, cared
for a variety of ways, and it struck me *every* time that if
it weren't for the caulk in the seams, walking a teak deck
would be shockingly similar to rollerskating. And some teak
decks are worse.

For a power boat, it's less of an issue. Our tugboat has
never once needed a headsail change while heeling 30 degrees ;)
I took off our teak deck because of structural issues in the
core underneath. Many many many boats with screwed-in teak
decks get a trampoline deck when they're younger than ours.



Some layup cloth/roving/matt on the outside and simply chopper the inside.
Did you know that several lamina in the layup schedule of Hallberg Rasseys
are choppered? Disappointed me to learn that.


The only bad thing about chopper gun is that it's heavy &
overly stiff for it's yield point (ie breaks too soon
relative to how much it bends). But if sandwiched between
layers of roving, it would be just fine to build up
thickness. Less likely to wick moisture thru the laminate,
less likely to be irregularly catalyzed.

I have a buddy who used to have a 100% chopper gun canoe.
Weighed about 200#.




Those same builders never anticipated being in business years later when
those cores were soaking wet, either.


They might not have thought it made that much difference, and couldn't
afford the labor to do it right anyway.


No doubt there was some builder ignorance involved, but I suspect many of
them knew exactly what would happen. A disgruntled ex-Sea Ray executive
told a SOUNDINGS editor that the company's policy, from the 70s on, is to
use ply in the transoms of their stern drive boats, knowing full well that
it would be soaked and soft in 20-30 years. Planned obsolescense.


Well, sure. American business at it's finest. Besides, after
they sell the boat the first time, why should they care what
happens to it? It's too easy to build a "reputation for
quality" by buying lots of expensive advertising. Shucks,
this works in politics too.



Interesting to see what the results will be. Airex and Divinycell and
Klegecell and there some new German stuff that's supposed to be miraculous
but is tediously expensive are all less supject to compression failure,
and certainly less prone to rot ;) but they are still not strong enough
to have rigging components thru-bolted to it. It may be that the caulk is
resilient enough to keep it watertight anyway, in your application.


Guess I should have explained in more detail: in the case of the sheet
stopper, I mounted a 3/4" teak backing plate and large diameter washers
underneath, and a slightly larger-than-the-stopper 1/2" teak mounting plate
on top.


OK, it may be that you've spread the compression over a
large enough area that it's not a problem. But there will be
a concentration of stress at the edge facing the direction
the line pulls from.

Hey if it works, it must have been done right!


.... While on the
subject, though, I'm surprised that honeycomb aluminum hasn't been utilized
as a core material in boats. Virtually no weight, nothing to wick mositure,
and rigid and crush-proof like a cast iron beam when between laminates. But
I suppose the stuff is really costly. I know it was (is?) used in composite
aircraft construction.

From what I've read, the issue is bonding the skin to the
core. Airplanes use some exotic technology to achieve this,
and it could be done (I believe it has been done) with some
high end boats for critical components. The easiest way to
get a good bond is to fill the cell with resin, but then you
don't have such a light structure any more!

DSK

What boat for me? (long)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...


I have a buddy who used to have a 100% chopper gun canoe. Weighed about
200#.

That must have been fun to portage.

OK, it may be that you've spread the compression over a large enough area
that it's not a problem. But there will be a concentration of stress at
the edge facing the direction the line pulls from.

It was installed three years ago and so far no evidence of any indentation
on the forward edge (facing the mast--it's a main halyard stopper).

Hey if it works, it must have been done right!

Beginner's luck, and a bit of overkill, according to the glass wizard at our
marina.

From what I've read, the issue is bonding the skin to the core. Airplanes
use some exotic technology to achieve this, and it could be done (I
believe it has been done) with some high end boats for critical
components. The easiest way to get a good bond is to fill the cell with
resin, but then you don't have such a light structure any more!

I found a website which claimed that Yamaha built a few prototype sailboats
with honeycomb aluminum coring throughout the hulls and on the flats of the
decks. It was great, according to the author, but the cost would have been
prohibitive. As for bonding the skins to the honeycomb, Hexcel Skis, which
used the technology, used to laminate the skins first and then apply a
slurry of resin and finely chopped fibers to the surface, into which the
honeycomb was pressed. Both inner skins were applied simultaneously and
bonded under high pressure--I vaguely tend to recall that it was about
150psi. Hexcel warranted the skis against delamination from the core for
life. My wife had a pair--they were light and responsive, according to
her--and we eventually threw them away after they hung in the rafters of the
garage for a decade or so after she'd gotten several new pairs of skis.
They never delaminated, but all my older French skis did--Rossignol, Dynamic
and others all used wood cores.

Max

What boat for me? (long)
 

I have a buddy who used to have a 100% chopper gun canoe. Weighed about
200#.


Maxprop wrote:
That must have been fun to portage.


Didn't. It rode on a ski boat trailer. The guy worked in a
fiberglass plant making bathtubs & such, and brought in a
canoe to use as a mold plug. He wanted to make a sailboat
but the canoe was not enough of a success to justify the work.


I found a website which claimed that Yamaha built a few prototype sailboats
with honeycomb aluminum coring throughout the hulls and on the flats of the
decks.

Yamaha builds some cool boats. They're currently making a 30
(IIRC) and a 33' sport boat that looks at least as fast and
more practical than anything else on the market,
unfortunately I've lost the web page & can't find it again.

There have been some "superyachts" built with structural
panels (floors & partial bulkheads, I think) with aluminum
honeycomb core.

... It was great, according to the author, but the cost would have been
prohibitive. As for bonding the skins to the honeycomb, Hexcel Skis, which
used the technology, used to laminate the skins first and then apply a
slurry of resin and finely chopped fibers to the surface, into which the
honeycomb was pressed. Both inner skins were applied simultaneously and
bonded under high pressure--I vaguely tend to recall that it was about
150psi.

The ones I read about used a different adhesive than
laminating resin to glue the core to the skin,
vacuum-bagged, then post-cured the whole structure (as I
understood the process). It's not a mature technology, but
it's hard to imagine what's coming up next by the time they
get this stuff completely figured out.

I've been working with some carbon fiber & foam core
laminations, learning enough to make a dinghy out of the
stuff. It's amazing, weighs nothing. A friend had a new
Int'l 14 hull made in a pro shop, then brought it home to
install the hardware. Could pick it up with one hand and
throw it across the yard like a huge paper plane!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

What boat for me? (long)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
I have a buddy who used to have a 100% chopper gun canoe. Weighed about
200#.


Maxprop wrote:
That must have been fun to portage.


Didn't. It rode on a ski boat trailer. The guy worked in a fiberglass
plant making bathtubs & such, and brought in a canoe to use as a mold
plug. He wanted to make a sailboat but the canoe was not enough of a
success to justify the work.


I found a website which claimed that Yamaha built a few prototype
sailboats with honeycomb aluminum coring throughout the hulls and on the
flats of the decks.

Yamaha builds some cool boats. They're currently making a 30 (IIRC) and a
33' sport boat that looks at least as fast and more practical than
anything else on the market, unfortunately I've lost the web page & can't
find it again.

There have been some "superyachts" built with structural panels (floors &
partial bulkheads, I think) with aluminum honeycomb core.

... It was great, according to the author, but the cost would have been
prohibitive. As for bonding the skins to the honeycomb, Hexcel Skis,
which used the technology, used to laminate the skins first and then
apply a slurry of resin and finely chopped fibers to the surface, into
which the honeycomb was pressed. Both inner skins were applied
simultaneously and bonded under high pressure--I vaguely tend to recall
that it was about 150psi.

The ones I read about used a different adhesive than laminating resin to
glue the core to the skin, vacuum-bagged, then post-cured the whole
structure (as I understood the process). It's not a mature technology, but
it's hard to imagine what's coming up next by the time they get this stuff
completely figured out.

I've been working with some carbon fiber & foam core laminations, learning
enough to make a dinghy out of the stuff. It's amazing, weighs nothing. A
friend had a new Int'l 14 hull made in a pro shop, then brought it home to
install the hardware. Could pick it up with one hand and throw it across
the yard like a huge paper plane!

I've wondered why carbon fiber hasn't been exploited more as lamina in
production boat hulls and decks, such as class racers, etc. If utilized in
mass quantities, the high cost factor should be mitigated somewhat. And how
about a carbon honeycomb core? Shouldn't present the bonding issues that
aluminum honeycomb did.

Max

What boat for me?... carbon fiber
 

Maxprop wrote:
I've wondered why carbon fiber hasn't been exploited more as lamina in
production boat hulls and decks, such as class racers, etc. If utilized in
mass quantities, the high cost factor should be mitigated somewhat.

It is being used more & more for spars, especially sprits &
spinnaker poles, also foils. For example Hobie Cats have
been using carbon fiber rudder blades for years.

The cost of the raw material just took a leap upward,
supposedly the military is buying up 110% of production for
the next few years. Fortunately I had already bought some
rolls of woven carbon for my dinghy project, I think I have
enough.

.... And how
about a carbon honeycomb core? Shouldn't present the bonding issues that
aluminum honeycomb did.


There is an expanded carbon core material, but it has to be
carved to shape. Difficult to work with. And it's *real*
expensive.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

What boat for me? (long)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
I think some of us enjoy projects of this nature. And some
of us are
pedantic enough to want to do it in the best possible
technological
manner. Most owners are clueless. ("You mean you have to
rebed those
things? What the hell . . .?")



Do you rebed handrails every year?

SBV