Re-core ? ? ?
 

Boat and yacht decks and hulls are commonly cored to
save weight.

What are the various types of core material?

What are the characteristics of each?

Lashes for terse answers. Points for detailed answers.

Re-core ? ? ?
 

On Jun 14, 8:27 pm, Bart wrote:
Boat and yacht decks and hulls are commonly cored to
save weight.

What are the various types of core material?

What are the characteristics of each?

Lashes for terse answers. Points for detailed answers.

Bob's 35s5 has a lightweight honeycomb core...made out of re-cycled
cardboard.

Characteristics....tends to swell when exposed to moisture.

Joe

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Boat and yacht decks and hulls are commonly cored to
save weight.

What are the various types of core material?

Airex foam
End-grain balsa
Plywood
Metal honeycomb


What are the characteristics of each?

Airex: a near-perfect core material, won't absorb water, quite rigid,
fairly lightweight, far cheaper than balsa or honeycomb, provides insulation
factor.

End-grain balsa: very lightweight, expensive, labor-intensive, low-tech,
will absorb water, quite rigid, some insulative properties.

Plywood: cheap, heavy, absorbs water like a sponge, very rigid, good
backing for major hardware like winches, cleats, did I mention cheap?

Honeycomb: rigid, very expensive, won't absorb water, but if damaged during
construction water can flow into the cells, no insulative properties, high
tech and the lightest in weight of the bunch.

There are probably others, but less significant in terms of commonality.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

Bob's 35s5 has a lightweight honeycomb core...made out of re-cycled
cardboard.



Joe doesn't sail enough to know the difference between a main and a
genoa. Now we can see how much he knows about boats and how they're
built. Beneteau hulls are NOT CORED, Joe. The honeycomb elements are
her bulkheads and floor sections above the structural grid.
Good work for today, Joe!



RB
35s5
NY

Re-core ? ? ?
 

On Jun 14, 11:02 pm, "Maxprop" wrote:
"Bart" wrote in message

ups.com...

Boat and yacht decks and hulls are commonly cored to
save weight.

What are the various types of core material?

Airex foam
End-grain balsa
Plywood
Metal honeycomb



What are the characteristics of each?

Airex: a near-perfect core material, won't absorb water, quite rigid,
fairly lightweight, far cheaper than balsa or honeycomb, provides insulation
factor.

End-grain balsa: very lightweight, expensive, labor-intensive, low-tech,
will absorb water, quite rigid, some insulative properties.

Plywood: cheap, heavy, absorbs water like a sponge, very rigid, good
backing for major hardware like winches, cleats, did I mention cheap?

Honeycomb: rigid, very expensive, won't absorb water, but if damaged during
construction water can flow into the cells, no insulative properties, high
tech and the lightest in weight of the bunch.

There are probably others, but less significant in terms of commonality.

Max

Hey Max! Good answer--worth 2 points, athough not as
funny as Joe's who get's 1/4 pt for his humor. A dozen
lashes to the Swab for being such a lame swab.

My understanding is balsa has far superior adhesion because
the end grain is rougher. Foam can suffer from extensive
delamination due to freezing--as water continues to propagate
in the layer between the laminates. Does anyone have
any experience with this?

Most builders don't properly seal the edges of the
core in areas where hardware is attached. Ensuring
water does not get into the core is not that hard to do,
but unfortunately most builders skip this step, and
few owners want to take the trouble to remove every
but of deck hardware to re-do what builders fail to do
--put solid glass or epoxy filler to seal the edges of
the laminate to prevent water intrusion into the core.
I caught one guy installing a thru-hull on my boat
skipping this step!

I've found that balsa even if rotten can still function
for a surprisingly long time in that condition. I'm just
starting to re-core the deck of my Etchells and found
quite a bit of rot, with virtually no weakness in the
deck. I attribute this to the curved shape of the
deck and coaming which the enhanced strength
of the deck.

I'm going to re-core it with balsa, although I have a
source of left over foam core that I could get my
hands on cheap--albeit I don't think it is the right
thickness for my application.

By the way, I've seen Nomex honeycomb in both
aluminum and epoxy coated paper, although I don't
know if the later is every used in boats. Does any
one know about that?

Bart

Re-core ? ? ?
 

What are the various types of core material?


Maxprop" wrote:
Airex foam

There are a lot of different types of foam. "Airex" is a brand name.

End-grain balsa
Plywood

Not really a core material IMHO. You can put fiberglass skins over
plywood and not gain a thing structurally over straight plywood..


Metal honeycomb


Many different types of honeycomb too.


What are the characteristics of each?


Airex: a near-perfect core material, won't absorb water, quite rigid,
fairly lightweight, far cheaper than balsa or honeycomb, provides insulation
factor.


Lower shear strength though. Some types of foam are easy to bond,
others less so. There are also lots of different densities of foam
with different properties such as higher impact resistance etc etc.

If one is going to build a foam core structure then it makes a lot of
sense to do some homework and shop around.


End-grain balsa: very lightweight, expensive, labor-intensive, low-tech,
will absorb water, quite rigid, some insulative properties.


You forgot the best property of end-grain balsa: very easy to get an
excellent bond to the skins with very high shear strength. And it has
pretty decent impact resistance.

The worst thing about end-grain balsa IMHO is that you can't screw
anything into it. Foam core can have lightly loaded screws right into
it, no problem. Balsa core you can't risk letting in any water, ever.


Plywood: cheap, heavy, absorbs water like a sponge, very rigid, good
backing for major hardware like winches, cleats, did I mention cheap?


Actually balsa core will absorb water more quickly than plywood.
However, plywood has long capillaries running thru the wood to wick
water all thru the structure, so the saturated area will spread
rapidly. End-grain balsa tends to rot out in small patches directly
around water penetration.


Honeycomb: rigid, very expensive, won't absorb water, but if damaged during
construction water can flow into the cells, no insulative properties, high
tech and the lightest in weight of the bunch.


Honeycomb *can* have great insulation if you choose the right stuff.

The biggest problem with honeycomb is that it has the lowest impact
resistance of any core material and it is difficult to get a good
bond.

There are probably others, but less significant in terms of commonality.


Chopper gun and matt are core material in an old-fashioned "solid
glass hand lay-up." They are very heavy but cheap and generally have
high shear strength.

Another "core" material is strip planks of light wood such as spruce.
A lot of traditional boats are built this way but the builders don't
like to think of what they do as "core" material.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Re-core ? ? ?
 

Bart wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:02 pm, "Maxprop" wrote:

"Bart" wrote in message

roups.com...


Boat and yacht decks and hulls are commonly cored to
save weight.

What are the various types of core material?

Airex foam
End-grain balsa
Plywood
Metal honeycomb




What are the characteristics of each?

Airex: a near-perfect core material, won't absorb water, quite rigid,
fairly lightweight, far cheaper than balsa or honeycomb, provides insulation
factor.

End-grain balsa: very lightweight, expensive, labor-intensive, low-tech,
will absorb water, quite rigid, some insulative properties.

Plywood: cheap, heavy, absorbs water like a sponge, very rigid, good
backing for major hardware like winches, cleats, did I mention cheap?

Honeycomb: rigid, very expensive, won't absorb water, but if damaged during
construction water can flow into the cells, no insulative properties, high
tech and the lightest in weight of the bunch.

There are probably others, but less significant in terms of commonality.

Max


Hey Max! Good answer--worth 2 points, athough not as
funny as Joe's who get's 1/4 pt for his humor. A dozen
lashes to the Swab for being such a lame swab.

Bart


Oh, no fair, Bart. I played nice and didn't say "apple" cause I didn't
want to be lashed so I think you owe Joe at least 6 stripes!

Re-core ? ? ?
 

OzOne wrote:
Biggest problem with foam cores is that they will break down and
granulate.
Seen this on many Syd-Hobart racers after the really big races
pounding to windward.


Heck, anything will break if you pound it hard enough, long enough.

Sounds to me like the problem might be a difference between the
fiberglass fatigue properties and the foam fatigue. Even if the bond
doesn't break down, tiny bits within the foam get excessive fatigue
and break up. Maybe?? Or is it from small areas of skin bond failure?

Would denser foam hold up better?

I have a couple of ideas how foam cored structures could be build to
accept higher load cycles, but am occupied with other things at the
moment ;)

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Re-core ? ? ?
 

Would denser foam hold up better?

OzOne wrote:
Apparentl caused by flex in the skin.
It just destroys the foam till the skin fractures and peels back in
the worst cases.


Hmm. sounds like localized fatigue all right. As the foam goes, the
skins gain more & more freedom of movement until the bond fails or
they exceed their fatigue limit.


Denser foam appears to make no difference, it's just a foam thing.

Do you know if anybody has tried using (say for example) 20# foam? All
the ones I see are using 8# and 6# for "heavy structural
applications." One fairly savvy builder says it makes more sense to
use spruce stringers than heavy foam... seen some pretty impressive
boats built with laminated wood skins over foam too.


IIRC, the bigguns have gone to balsa where cores need to be super
strong.


Balsa has it's problems too. Good stuff in the right application. Part
of the situation is that the buyers of these boats need to recognize
that a boat intended to sail hard can only be built so light. But they
go with the design/build team that promises the best numbers.... go
figure...

Hey Bart, if you're still reading this, I would recommend building in
some uncored stringers under your deck rather than replacing core.
Kind of like the C-beams I put under the super-dinghy's thwarts, if
you remember that pic.

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Bart" wrote in message

My understanding is balsa has far superior adhesion because
the end grain is rougher. Foam can suffer from extensive
delamination due to freezing--as water continues to propagate
in the layer between the laminates. Does anyone have
any experience with this?

My experience: There are four C&Cs in our marina, all of which have
end-grain balsa above the waterline and in the decks. And all are quite
wet. As for structural integrity, all the owners have remarked that they
aren't going to do anything about it, as the hull and deck stiffness is
still pretty good. I do worry about the freeze/thaw issue, however. And
weight.

My sloop has Airex foam. No delamination anywhere, and I can't find any
water in the hull or deck at all. I've been over the entire boat with a
moisture meter several times in subsequent years. Of course that is just
one man's experience, but I'm happy.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...

Biggest problem with foam cores is that they will break down and
granulate.
Seen this on many Syd-Hobart racers after the really big races
pounding to windward.

Most unusual circumstances, Oz. 99.9% of the rest of the boats in the world
won't ever see that level of abuse. And those Hobart boats are generally
throw-away boats after a single race. Ellison's "Sayonara" is in a building
in Holland, MI, looking brand new, with the material for a new keel lying
under her, and she hasn't been touched in over a decade. Larry must have
lost interest in her, and it's "easier" to pay the rent to keep her stored
than to worry about what to do with her.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

OzOne wrote...
Biggest problem with foam cores is that they will break down and
granulate.
Seen this on many Syd-Hobart racers after the really big races
pounding to windward.


"Maxprop" wrote:
Most unusual circumstances, Oz. 99.9% of the rest of the boats in the world
won't ever see that level of abuse.

Sailing to windward in higher winds is "abuse"? Funny, I had the idea
that's what boats were supposed to be built for.

And those Hobart boats are generally
throw-away boats after a single race.

Utter nonsense. They are no more "throw-away boats" than your 1D35...
less so, if anything (correct me if I'm wrong, but have 1D35s sailed
any mjor offshore races?)


Ellison's "Sayonara" is in a building
in Holland, MI, looking brand new, with the material for a new keel lying
under her, and she hasn't been touched in over a decade. Larry must have
lost interest in her, and it's "easier" to pay the rent to keep her stored
than to worry about what to do with her.


It's more a matter that nobody else will buy her for more than scrap
value. It will take a tremendous wad of cash to put her back in
sailing order again. And if she's "looking brand new" then she must
not have been a "throw-away boat" eh?

Save the self-contradiction for political stuff, Max!

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
OzOne wrote...
Biggest problem with foam cores is that they will break down and
granulate.
Seen this on many Syd-Hobart racers after the really big races
pounding to windward.


"Maxprop" wrote:
Most unusual circumstances, Oz. 99.9% of the rest of the boats in the
world
won't ever see that level of abuse.

Sailing to windward in higher winds is "abuse"? Funny, I had the idea
that's what boats were supposed to be built for.

Are you serious? Where have you been, Doug? Higher winds are only part of
the issue. How about monstrous waves, a team of youngsters (plus an
occasional oldtimer) pushing the rig and hull to its breaking point,
pounding and dropping off shear wavefronts, did I mention monstrous waves?


And those Hobart boats are generally
throw-away boats after a single race.

Utter nonsense. They are no more "throw-away boats" than your 1D35...
less so, if anything (correct me if I'm wrong, but have 1D35s sailed
any mjor offshore races?)

Again you've pretended to a throne without the proper credentials. Those
who build boats for such races seldom race them again. They sell them to
those who don't have the means to employ the latest technology and design:
throwaway. Ellison's boat in Holland, MI, is a prime example. And your
comment about the 1D35 doesn't deserve a response.

Ellison's "Sayonara" is in a building
in Holland, MI, looking brand new, with the material for a new keel lying
under her, and she hasn't been touched in over a decade. Larry must have
lost interest in her, and it's "easier" to pay the rent to keep her
stored
than to worry about what to do with her.


It's more a matter that nobody else will buy her for more than scrap
value. It will take a tremendous wad of cash to put her back in
sailing order again. And if she's "looking brand new" then she must
not have been a "throw-away boat" eh?

She was completely rebuilt by Ellison, for what reason is anyone's guess.
She was near trash after she won the Hobart in a year when others died and
boats sank. Your presumption that nobody will buy her is speculation of the
most absurd kind. Larry Ellison doesn't have to sell anything, nor does he
worry about the cost of rebuilding such a boat. My best guess is that he
considers her too far out of the mainstream of current race boat design to
mess with. Thus she sits.


Save the self-contradiction for political stuff, Max!

Once again you've jumped in with both feet in your mouth, pretending to be
an expert in everything and smarter to boot. Your arrogance is appalling,
Doug, but not quite as appalling as your complete lack of civility. Oh, and
you are wrong on all points.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

Sailing to windward in higher winds is "abuse"? Funny, I had the idea
that's what boats were supposed to be built for.


"Maxprop" wrote:
Are you serious?

Yes.

Are you serious in suggesting that boats should *not* be built to sail
hard in strong winds?


Where have you been, Doug?

Around

Higher winds are only part of
the issue. How about monstrous waves, a team of youngsters (plus an
occasional oldtimer) pushing the rig and hull to its breaking point,
pounding and dropping off shear wavefronts, did I mention monstrous waves?


Yeah, so what? Do *you* encounter those conditions on a regular basis?

And you're contradicting yourself again- first you say the boats are
flimsy throw-aways because they come apart after a Sydney-Hobart Race,
then you rant & rave about monstrous waves.



Utter nonsense. They are no more "throw-away boats" than your 1D35...
less so, if anything (correct me if I'm wrong, but have 1D35s sailed
any mjor offshore races?)


Again you've pretended to a throne without the proper credentials.


??

Those
who build boats for such races seldom race them again. They sell them to
those who don't have the means to employ the latest technology and design:
throwaway.

And said boats often have racing careers spanning decades.... hardly
"throw-aways."


... Ellison's boat in Holland, MI, is a prime example.


Yep- raced hard, looks like new. Proves the opposite of what you
claim, doesn't it?


... And your
comment about the 1D35 doesn't deserve a response.


Meaning that you don't have an intelligent answer? If you're a member
of the class then you should have a good idea about what races they go
to.

Do 1D35s race in the Mac? Seems like a great boat for it.

But is it a "throw-away"?





Once again you've jumped in with both feet in your mouth, pretending to be
an expert in everything and smarter to boot. Your arrogance is appalling,
Doug, but not quite as appalling as your complete lack of civility. Oh, and
you are wrong on all points.


yeah, sure, whatever

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
Sailing to windward in higher winds is "abuse"? Funny, I had the idea
that's what boats were supposed to be built for.


"Maxprop" wrote:
Are you serious?

Yes.

Are you serious in suggesting that boats should *not* be built to sail
hard in strong winds?

Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None of them
are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.

Where have you been, Doug?

Around

Higher winds are only part of
the issue. How about monstrous waves, a team of youngsters (plus an
occasional oldtimer) pushing the rig and hull to its breaking point,
pounding and dropping off shear wavefronts, did I mention monstrous
waves?


Yeah, so what? Do *you* encounter those conditions on a regular basis?

I avoid them like the plague. Whether my boat is up to the task is unknown,
but I suspect she is. (Clover, not the 1D35)

And you're contradicting yourself again- first you say the boats are
flimsy throw-aways because they come apart after a Sydney-Hobart Race,
then you rant & rave about monstrous waves.

No, no, no. You used the word "flimsy." I never used that word, nor did I
imply it. 99% of what you believe to me *my* contradictions are words *you*
have gratuitously attributed to me. Hobart boats are built very tough, but
not beyond what is expected to be needed for the race. They are built light
and fast. A crab-crusher would stand up to the abuse of the Hobart with
ease, but it wouldn't win anything but a seasick crew who had to spend an
additional week enroute. Like America's Cup boats, the boats are not
overbuilt, but they are built strong enough. The designers/builders/owners
don't expect to go cruising with them ten years later--they expect to build
something better next year or the year after, if the boat stands up to the
race without significant damage or hull/deck degradation during the race,
AND if the design hasn't been significantly superceded by technology and
superior design over the intervening year. Ergo: throwaway boats. And
we're talking about the serious racers--the ones that race to win--not the
rest of the fleet that competes for the honor of saying they did the Hobart.



Utter nonsense. They are no more "throw-away boats" than your 1D35...
less so, if anything (correct me if I'm wrong, but have 1D35s sailed
any mjor offshore races?)


Again you've pretended to a throne without the proper credentials.


??

Those
who build boats for such races seldom race them again. They sell them to
those who don't have the means to employ the latest technology and
design:
throwaway.

And said boats often have racing careers spanning decades.... hardly
"throw-aways."

How many Hobart boats has Larry Ellison raced a second time? Or ever raced
again? I don't have the answer, but I'm guessing not a single one. He, and
others with similar means, seldom campaign the same boat for more than a
year. They build all-out racing machines for the races in question,
"discard" them, and build something better and faster the next year. Ergo:
throwaway boats.


... Ellison's boat in Holland, MI, is a prime example.


Yep- raced hard, looks like new. Proves the opposite of what you
claim, doesn't it?

Not at all. Once again you've presumed to put words in my mouth. It looks
brand new because it has been completely rebuilt, ostensibly with Ellison's
money, but no one I've spoken with knows for sure. The boat was
significantly damaged following its win in the Hobart. Had it not been
rebuilt, it wouldn't look like new.



... And your
comment about the 1D35 doesn't deserve a response.


Meaning that you don't have an intelligent answer? If you're a member
of the class then you should have a good idea about what races they go
to.

I've been involved for a couple of months. I have a life beyond one-design
racing, meaning I haven't spent the last year on a trawler with nothing more
to do than study the history of the class. I do know that there are a
number of fleets throughout the country, and perhaps elsewhere. Beyond that
I really don't give a rat's ass. I race for fun, not for glory. I have a
lot of work to put in before I'm going to be competitive on a consistent
basis, despite my racing history with dinghies. Ours if far from the
toughest fleet around--none of our fleet members have competed successfully
at the national level yet, but some are very talented and will do so in the
future, I'm confident.


Do 1D35s race in the Mac? Seems like a great boat for it.

I've been told they have.

But is it a "throw-away"?

Exactly the opposite. They are designed and built to be raced indefinitely,
thus the one-design designation. The class is tightly controlled (one
builder, for example) therefore the boats built early should be competitive
with newer ones a decade later.





Once again you've jumped in with both feet in your mouth, pretending to
be
an expert in everything and smarter to boot. Your arrogance is
appalling,
Doug, but not quite as appalling as your complete lack of civility. Oh,
and
you are wrong on all points.


yeah, sure, whatever

I'd be surprised if you ever did otherwise, Doug. You never fail to
disappoint.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:17:45 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None of them
are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.

Actually, 'average' Hobart is just a coastal jaunt....I'm going this
year....Sometimes it's as tough as they get.

But one never knows until the race, does one. Good luck--I envy you that.


Bennies and Jennies do the race every year and survive even the bad
ones.

That is surprising. I suppose such boats could quietly drop out if the
forecast failed to bode well.

If I had the resources, I'd love to buy Sayonara and do the Hobart. Perhaps
I could steal her--I doubt if Ellison has given her a thought in over five
years.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

In article OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:17:45 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None
of them are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.

Actually, 'average' Hobart is just a coastal jaunt....I'm going
thisyear....Sometimes it's as tough as they get.

I expect to be in Antarctica over the summer but possibly not. Drop me
a line closer to theevent and if I'm around I'll buy you a beer or 2.

PDW

--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Maxprop" scribbled thusly:
Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None of them
are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.


Hunters, check.
Catalinas... a few models are pretty well built.
Beneteaus... a lot of them are well built.... I suspect the South
Carolina built ones are the worst of the lot and giving the rest a bad
rep I recently checked out a new 10R and it's a great boat.
Jeanneaus... many of their boats are very well built and carry out
some pretty serious sailing. I have the hots for a Sun Legend.


Actually, 'average' Hobart is just a coastal jaunt....I'm going this
year....Sometimes it's as tough as they get.


I would love to go on a Sydney-Hobart race. Oz, good luck from me,
too!


Bennies and Jennies do the race every year and survive even the bad
ones.

That is surprising. I suppose such boats could quietly drop out if the
forecast failed to bode well.




OzOne wrote:
7 or 8 bennies in last year, all raced to the finish IIRC.

Oops, Maxprop drops another one. His ranting just goes to show that he
doesn't really know much about it, although he certainly is quick to
accuse me of ignorance. If he had so much as looked over the Mac race
fleet, which happens in his own back yard, he'd see scores of old
warhorse racing yachts that were the hottest stuff in their day and
still going thru the paces. And yet they are supposed to be "throw-
aways"..... then he turns around and gets indignant because I
misattributrd calling them "flimsy" to him also.

Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him ;)


You have a false impression of the structural integrity from these
manufacturers.
They are actually very strong yachts, what lets them down at sea is
things like cupboard latches which just aren't tough enough for a
pounding.
Easily fixed if you want to cruise or even race.


In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

The funny thing (to me at least) (but then I have a cruel sense of
humor) is the large number of much more expensive boats that are
really no better. They just spend more on advertising how well-built
they are.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message

I expect to be in Antarctica over the summer

Doing what, Pete? I'm very curious.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:37:50 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:17:45 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None of
them
are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.

Actually, 'average' Hobart is just a coastal jaunt....I'm going this
year....Sometimes it's as tough as they get.

But one never knows until the race, does one. Good luck--I envy you that.


Bennies and Jennies do the race every year and survive even the bad
ones.

That is surprising. I suppose such boats could quietly drop out if the
forecast failed to bode well.

If I had the resources, I'd love to buy Sayonara and do the Hobart.
Perhaps
I could steal her--I doubt if Ellison has given her a thought in over five
years.

Max

7 or 8 bennies in last year, all raced to the finish IIRC.
You have a false impression of the structural integrity from these
manufacturers.
They are actually very strong yachts, what lets them down at sea is
things like cupboard latches which just aren't tough enough for a
pounding.
Easily fixed if you want to cruise or even race.

Actually I'm aware of the construction of Beneteaus, if not Jeanneaus.
Bendys have their bulkheads bonded (fiberglassed) solidly to the hull and
deck, something even some "top notch" manufacturers fail to do. What
bothers me is the mass-produced nature of such boats. Chantiers Beneteau is
the largest boat manufacturer in the world, and they turn out yachts by the
thousands. Such production schedules could conceivably make them one of the
best builders, but could also conceivably lead to corners that are cut and
mistakes made. (See Detroit and mass automobile production) When examining
new Bendys and Jeanneaus at recent boat shows, I've noted hard spots where
the bulkheads are bonded to the hulls, making the locations of the bulkheads
visible while looking at the hull from outside. That could also conceivably
indicate thin lay-up schedules in the hull laminates. I'm skeptical, but
willing to be proven wrong on my opinions of those mass-produced French
boats.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message

Oops, Maxprop drops another one. His ranting just goes to show that he
doesn't really know much about it, although he certainly is quick to
accuse me of ignorance. If he had so much as looked over the Mac race
fleet, which happens in his own back yard, he'd see scores of old
warhorse racing yachts that were the hottest stuff in their day and
still going thru the paces. And yet they are supposed to be "throw-
aways"..... then he turns around and gets indignant because I
misattributrd calling them "flimsy" to him also.

First, you apparently have no concept of the Chicago-Mac race. It's
generally a light air event, seldom bringing forth rough weather. My own
boat, Clover, a 1982 Sea Sprite 34, won second in her class a decade ago, in
a year that actually amounted to some good sailing with a consistent 15 kts.
throughout most of the race. That's light air by anyone's standard, but
significantly more than most Macs see. The trial of the Mac, however, is
finding experienced crew--most won't do a second one after drifting north
for a week. Second, I never indicated that Mac boats are throw-aways. I
applied that only to the Hobart maxis. You love to twist my words to fit
your particular brand of anti-social rhetoric. But that's okay--I expect as
much from you.


Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him ;)

Your lack of civility is seldom seen while addressing issues with others.
You seem to reserve that for Bobsprit and myself, diverse in opinion as he
and I may be. I tend to believe you simply can't get past being termed a
liberal. Revenge is a petty motive in any discussion.

You have a false impression of the structural integrity from these
manufacturers.
They are actually very strong yachts, what lets them down at sea is
things like cupboard latches which just aren't tough enough for a
pounding.
Easily fixed if you want to cruise or even race.


In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

Do I detect an implication of "flimsy?" Glad I didn't say that. g

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Maxprop" wrote:
First, you apparently have no concept of the Chicago-Mac race.

No, "apparently" I don't. I've just sailed it more times than you.



..... It's
generally a light air event, seldom bringing forth rough weather.

"Generally" is a nice elusive word.

I think the Chi-Mac race (have to be specific since there are now at
least three other Mac races) has wind & conditions generally
reflective of summer sailing on the Great Lakes. People tend to
remember the blows, though. Just like your mistaken impression that
the Sydney-Hobart race is always a struggle for survival.

My own
boat, Clover, a 1982 Sea Sprite 34, won second in her class a decade ago, in
a year that actually amounted to some good sailing with a consistent 15 kts.
throughout most of the race. That's light air by anyone's standard, but
significantly more than most Macs see.

15 kts is "light air"?


..... The trial of the Mac, however, is
finding experienced crew--most won't do a second one after drifting north
for a week.

Not even close, at least not among the Mac sailors I know.

.... Second, I never indicated that Mac boats are throw-aways. I
applied that only to the Hobart maxis.

I see. So it's not the racing boats in *your* neighborhood that are
throw-aways, it's always the other guys.

.... You love to twist my words to fit
your particular brand of anti-social rhetoric.

All I do is point out your falsehoods & illogic.



Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him ;)

Your lack of civility is seldom seen while addressing issues with others.

My "lack of civility" is in the eye of the beholder, mainly.


In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

Do I detect an implication of "flimsy?" Glad I didn't say that. g


Generally, one does not refer to wiring & plumbing & mechanical issues
as "flimsy." Generally, that refers to structure of hull & strength of
rig. A "flimsy" boat is one that distorts visibly when the backstay is
cranked on, or lets you know it's time to change down by popping it's
tabbing, etc etc.

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

On Jun 16, 8:16 am, wrote:
OzOne wrote:
Biggest problem with foam cores is that they will break down and
granulate.
Seen this on many Syd-Hobart racers after the really big races
pounding to windward.

Heck, anything will break if you pound it hard enough, long enough.

Sounds to me like the problem might be a difference between the
fiberglass fatigue properties and the foam fatigue. Even if the bond
doesn't break down, tiny bits within the foam get excessive fatigue
and break up. Maybe?? Or is it from small areas of skin bond failure?

Would denser foam hold up better?

I have a couple of ideas how foam cored structures could be build to
accept higher load cycles, but am occupied with other things at the
moment ;)

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

I understand foam breaks down in carbon fiber dinghies
even faster!

Re-core ? ? ?
 

On Jun 17, 2:16 pm, wrote:

Hey Bart, if you're still reading this, I would recommend building in
some uncored stringers under your deck rather than replacing core.
Kind of like the C-beams I put under the super-dinghy's thwarts, if
you remember that pic.

DSK

I am not sure if that is class legal. Anyway, I want to
make the decks pretty, so I'm working from the top.

Re-core ? ? ?
 

On Jun 19, 9:34 am, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:17:45 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Jeanneaus, shall I continue? None of them
are built for conditions similar to the 'average' Hobart.

Actually, 'average' Hobart is just a coastal jaunt....I'm going this
year....Sometimes it's as tough as they get.

Bennies and Jennies do the race every year and survive even the bad
ones.

Oz1...of the 3 twins.


You've done the trip before haven't you?
What sort of boat will you be on this time?

Bart

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Maxprop" wrote:
First, you apparently have no concept of the Chicago-Mac race.

No, "apparently" I don't. I've just sailed it more times than you.

Well, that wouldn't be hard to do. I've never raced the Mac. But I
question your veracity in this. It's like claiming to have been at
Woodstock--about a million more people than were there claim to have gone.
But I can check on your veracity--give me some boat names, skippers, and
years. It's all in the archives, and easily obtainable.

..... It's
generally a light air event, seldom bringing forth rough weather.

"Generally" is a nice elusive word.

It's appropriate. There have been some heavy weather races, but in general
it's light air. I see the boats go by every year, and have been doing so
since the mid-80s. I believe that qualifies me to make an accurate
observation, not to mention that it gets a ton of press around here,
including a day-to-day weather and conditions report.


I think the Chi-Mac race (have to be specific since there are now at
least three other Mac races) has wind & conditions generally

A "nice elusive word," eh?

reflective of summer sailing on the Great Lakes. People tend to
remember the blows, though. Just like your mistaken impression that
the Sydney-Hobart race is always a struggle for survival.

I never claimed it was. And once again you've attributed words to me that I
never said. You're quite adept at that--it's called lying. *Generally* the
Hobart is several force factors above anything normally seen in the Mac.
Few Hobarts escape without at least a day or so of heavy weather.
(Incidentally, "Mac" is the term used around here for the Chicago-Mac. The
Port Huron is abbreviated exactly as that.)


My own
boat, Clover, a 1982 Sea Sprite 34, won second in her class a decade ago,
in
a year that actually amounted to some good sailing with a consistent 15
kts.
throughout most of the race. That's light air by anyone's standard, but
significantly more than most Macs see.

15 kts is "light air"?

Absolutely. Do you believe it to be *heavy?*

..... The trial of the Mac, however, is
finding experienced crew--most won't do a second one after drifting north
for a week.

Not even close, at least not among the Mac sailors I know.

Living here, I'm confident I know many more than you, Tarheel. Some have
raced the Mac more years than I've been sailing, and they despise the
drifters. They are the dedicated Mac afficiandos. Most crew aren't that
dedicated, rather more like casual racers looking for some kicks and the
right to claim a participation in the Mac. They experience a drifter
(typical) and decide that around-the-buoys racing is more their speed. I've
personally spoken with dozens of the latter types. Three of them are 1D35
skippers in our fleet.


.... Second, I never indicated that Mac boats are throw-aways. I
applied that only to the Hobart maxis.

I see. So it's not the racing boats in *your* neighborhood that are
throw-aways, it's always the other guys.

What hogwash that comment is. Not worth responding to, beyond pointing out
that its just more Doug-style bull****.


.... You love to twist my words to fit
your particular brand of anti-social rhetoric.

All I do is point out your falsehoods & illogic.

No. You lie and you spin. You've lied and spun consistently since the
inception of our debates (arguments, more correctly). You are incapable of
carrying on a logical, dispassionate debate with me for some reason. To the
contrary, you find it necessary to denigrate me, rather than dispute my
argument. That is the hallmark of one who's own argument is already lost.


Come to think of it, I'd also like to see him point out my
"uncivility" also... probably just means that I have the bad manners
to disagree with him ;)

Your lack of civility is seldom seen while addressing issues with others.

My "lack of civility" is in the eye of the beholder, mainly.

Perhaps, but ad hominem attacks, of which you seem incapable of avoiding
when debating me, are hardly civil. If you hadn't noticed, I've begun to
respond in kind--no point not to at this stage of our relationship. You and
I will never be friends, nor will we ever have anything resembling respect
for each other. Let the cannonballs fly, so to speak . . .



In some models... it may just be the ones sold over here... a lot of
the detailing is not fit for hard sailing (by which I mean spending
many days a year actively sailing the boat in winds of say 15 to 30
knots, corresponding seas... not extreme conditions). Another issue
are things like the wiring & plumbing fit-out which are not well
enough finished off to avoid corrosion, chafing, creeping &
progressive mis-alignment, etc etc.

Do I detect an implication of "flimsy?" Glad I didn't say that. g


Generally,

My, how nicely elusive . . .

one does not refer to wiring & plumbing & mechanical issues
as "flimsy." Generally, that refers to structure of hull & strength of
rig. A "flimsy" boat is one that distorts visibly when the backstay is
cranked on, or lets you know it's time to change down by popping it's
tabbing, etc etc.

'Definitions according to Doug King.' That's another thing I find so
predictable about you--you have all the answers, evey time, on every
subject, without fail. Nice to know such confidence exists, even if it's
delusional.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Maxprop" wrote:
'Definitions according to Doug King.' That's another thing I find so
predictable about you--you have all the answers, evey time, on every
subject, without fail.

??
I have never claimed to have "all the answers" or anything of the
kind.

Nice to know such confidence exists, even if it's
delusional.


So, by your own estimate, I have more Mac experience than you... a
race in your backyard.... you have no experience whatever in mine...
what exactly is "delusional" about this?

I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and stop spitting your
Maypo all over the table when you read my posts.

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Maxprop" wrote:
'Definitions according to Doug King.' That's another thing I find so
predictable about you--you have all the answers, evey time, on every
subject, without fail.

??
I have never claimed to have "all the answers" or anything of the
kind.

Nice to know such confidence exists, even if it's
delusional.


So, by your own estimate, I have more Mac experience than you... a
race in your backyard.... you have no experience whatever in mine...
what exactly is "delusional" about this?

I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and stop spitting your
Maypo all over the table when you read my posts.

I laugh when I read your posts. You are such a cod, and it's easier to hook
you than Bubbles or just about anyone else.

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Maxprop" wrote:
I laugh when I read your posts. You are such a cod

??
Better than being a flounder, anyway

.... and it's easier to hook
you than Bubbles or just about anyone else.


Got it.... whenever you are caught being an ignorant ass, you claim to
be trolling...

Are you "working on a script" too?

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?


No.

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:11:52 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?

Dunno if Doug had the correct spelling, but he was referring to a cereal
dish for small children. Its key line for a series of ads in the '60s was
"I
want my Maypo."

Don't recall ever hearing of it, but I'll take your word for it. Perhaps
Doug eats it for breakfast.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Maxprop" wrote:
I laugh when I read your posts. You are such a cod

??
Better than being a flounder, anyway

.... and it's easier to hook
you than Bubbles or just about anyone else.


Got it.... whenever you are caught being an ignorant ass, you claim to
be trolling...

. . . and successfully, demonstrated succinctly when you resort to ad
hominem attacks rather than belaboring your failed argument.

Max

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:11:52 GMT, "Maxprop"
said:

What's Maypo? Is that some southern dish?

Dunno if Doug had the correct spelling, but he was
referring to a cereal
dish for small children. Its key line for a series of
ads in the '60s was
"I
want my Maypo."

Don't recall ever hearing of it, but I'll take your word
for it. Perhaps
Doug eats it for breakfast.

you punky kids!

http://www.lavasurfer.com/bchof/hof-maypo.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdkl8w8MXw

GrandPa Scotty

Re-core ? ? ?
 

Got it.... whenever you are caught being an ignorant ass, you claim to
be trolling...

"Maxprop" wrote:
. . . and successfully, demonstrated succinctly when you resort to ad
hominem attacks rather than belaboring your failed argument.


What "failed argument"?
Let's review: you made a number of claims about 'throw-away' boats,
arrogantly denied any facts to the contrary, got ****y when I
misattributed the word "flimsy" to your statements (is the difference
between "flimsy" and "throw-away" all that large), attempted to
backpedal by saying you meant other racing boats than the ones in your
own area, and finally when proven wrong at every point you claimed to
be trolling. You accused me of lying & spinning & being uncivil, and
have yet to point out any instance of any of that.... other than my
calling you an ignorant ass, which came later on.... and seems pretty
well justified in the end.

Pretty long list there, Max. You'd do better to stick to sailing.

DSK

Re-core ? ? ?
 

Scotty wrote:


Don't recall ever hearing of it, but I'll take your word
for it. Perhaps
Doug eats it for breakfast.

you punky kids!

http://www.lavasurfer.com/bchof/hof-maypo.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdkl8w8MXw

I'll bet you learned about it in highschool film class! We didn't have
electricity to run the projector.

Cheers
Marty

Re-core ? ? ?
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:


Don't recall ever hearing of it, but I'll take your
word
for it. Perhaps
Doug eats it for breakfast.

you punky kids!

http://www.lavasurfer.com/bchof/hof-maypo.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdkl8w8MXw

I'll bet you learned about it in highschool film class! We
didn't have
electricity to run the projector.


My brother and I used to have ''Maypo fights'' at the
breakfast table.

Scotty

Re-core ? ? ?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Got it.... whenever you are caught being an ignorant ass, you claim to
be trolling...

"Maxprop" wrote:
. . . and successfully, demonstrated succinctly when you resort to ad
hominem attacks rather than belaboring your failed argument.


What "failed argument"?
Let's review: you made a number of claims about 'throw-away' boats,
arrogantly denied any facts to the contrary, got ****y when I
misattributed the word "flimsy" to your statements

So pointing out that you are putting words in my mouth is getting "****y?"
Okay, whatever floats your boat.

(is the difference
between "flimsy" and "throw-away" all that large),

Perhaps and perhaps not. But I wasn't infering any flimsy nature in the
Hobart boats--only that the owners used them once and got rid of them, one
way or another. Some sold them, some put them on back lots to degenerate,
and others put them in storage, rebuilt and otherwise neglected. That you
seem to equate flimsy with throw-away is limited thinking on your
part--something I've come to expect.

attempted to
backpedal by saying you meant other racing boats than the ones in your
own area,

No backpedaling in the least. It was you who took my comment about Hobart
boats and applied it to other locales. Again you inferred something I never
said nor implied. You don't read well.

and finally when proven wrong at every point

Only by your extremely myopic standards. But I'm accustomed to you
insisting you're right despite being wrong.

you claimed to
be trolling.

I'm always trolling where you are concerned, Douggie. You'd be wise to
ignore my posts, but wisdom isn't one of your long suits.

You accused me of lying & spinning & being uncivil, and
have yet to point out any instance of any of that.... other than my
calling you an ignorant ass, which came later on.... and seems pretty
well justified in the end.

That hook is getting deeper, and you're showing no signs of spitting it out.

Pretty long list there, Max. You'd do better to stick to sailing.

So would you. Sadly you have a powerboat.

Max