Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:30?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:29?pm, HK wrote:
Just read that Albemarle was bought out by Brunswick. Another famous
line goes in the crapper. Cabo was sold last year. Sad to see the
independents disappearing, since they build the best boats.
Where have you been, Harry?
Brunswick has owned Albermarle for quite while now. Basically, they
are built by the same group that makes Hatteras. Many of the upper
tier
trademarks built by Brunswick are pretty darn good boats.
I'm sure they were better boats when the companies that built them were
independent. The newest model Albemarle, for example, is wider and with
less deadrise than the model it will be replacing. That's corporate
conglomerate think for you...take a line of fishing boats and turn them
into something less.

Why would every boat in succession always have to be narrower and with
a deeper V than previous models? Perhaps the new model is intended for
slightly different conditions.

Slightly different conditions? Like what, flats fishing? Dockside condos?

There has been discussion for some time on the more serious "fishing"
boards about the downturn in quality in Cabos by those who know them
well, and the same is beginning to be said about Albemarles. These
comments come from experienced owners who actually know something about
these boats and others of their style. Guys who when they see a term
like "composite construction" used to describe a hull tend to say,
"composite what?"

On Nov 4, 8:40?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:30?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:29?pm, HK wrote:
Just read that Albemarle was bought out by Brunswick. Another famous
line goes in the crapper. Cabo was sold last year. Sad to see the
independents disappearing, since they build the best boats.
Where have you been, Harry?
Brunswick has owned Albermarle for quite while now. Basically, they
are built by the same group that makes Hatteras. Many of the upper
tier
trademarks built by Brunswick are pretty darn good boats.
I'm sure they were better boats when the companies that built them were
independent. The newest model Albemarle, for example, is wider and with
less deadrise than the model it will be replacing. That's corporate
conglomerate think for you...take a line of fishing boats and turn them
into something less.

Why would every boat in succession always have to be narrower and with
a deeper V than previous models? Perhaps the new model is intended for
slightly different conditions.

Slightly different conditions? Like what, flats fishing? Dockside condos?

There has been discussion for some time on the more serious "fishing"
boards about the downturn in quality in Cabos by those who know them
well, and the same is beginning to be said about Albemarles. These
comments come from experienced owners who actually know something about
these boats and others of their style. Guys who when they see a term
like "composite construction" used to describe a hull tend to say,
"composite what?"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep expressing a concern regarding the term "composite."

When I visit some of the local factories, the types and varieties of
materials used by everybody is amazing in its diversity. Gone are the
days when most boats were built simply from mulitple layers of glass
strand cloth and resin. Space age materials such as Kevlar, and a wide
variety of coring materials (going well beyond the traditional and
problematic balsas and foams) are strategically included in the
assembly of materials in the "dry" layup before the vaccuum-assisted
infusion of resin. Many of these specialized synthetic materials are
produced specficially for inclusion in a fibergalss hull. There was a
time when differentiating between "hand rolled" and chopper gun FRP
was sufficiently informative, but in an era of rapidly changing (and
we hope "advancing") technology the general term "composite" is as
useful as "hand laid" used to be. How many of these savvy fishermen
would routinely demand to know "hand laid with what? How many layers
at the keel, at the chine? What is the rove to resin ratio in the
transom?" etc?


As you like to view the boating world from the perspective of a
fisherman, here's a link to an item that appeared in Sal****er
Sportsman. It fills in many of the gaps for folks uneasy about the
"new fangled" terms. :-)

http://www.sal****ersportsman.com/ar...sp?ID=21012214

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:40?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:30?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:29?pm, HK wrote:
Just read that Albemarle was bought out by Brunswick. Another famous
line goes in the crapper. Cabo was sold last year. Sad to see the
independents disappearing, since they build the best boats.
Where have you been, Harry?
Brunswick has owned Albermarle for quite while now. Basically, they
are built by the same group that makes Hatteras. Many of the upper
tier
trademarks built by Brunswick are pretty darn good boats.
I'm sure they were better boats when the companies that built them were
independent. The newest model Albemarle, for example, is wider and with
less deadrise than the model it will be replacing. That's corporate
conglomerate think for you...take a line of fishing boats and turn them
into something less.
Why would every boat in succession always have to be narrower and with
a deeper V than previous models? Perhaps the new model is intended for
slightly different conditions.
Slightly different conditions? Like what, flats fishing? Dockside condos?

There has been discussion for some time on the more serious "fishing"
boards about the downturn in quality in Cabos by those who know them
well, and the same is beginning to be said about Albemarles. These
comments come from experienced owners who actually know something about
these boats and others of their style. Guys who when they see a term
like "composite construction" used to describe a hull tend to say,
"composite what?"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep expressing a concern regarding the term "composite."


Yes, well, the question wasn't about "composite," but composite *what*?
I asked you that several times, and you never provided an answer.


I can appreciate the use of foamboard as the filling of a fiberglass
sandwich in the transom, but not in the hullsides or bottom. The only
materials I think suitable for the fiberglass "hull" are the various
cloths and resins, not foam or foam boards or fillers.

"HK" wrote in message
news
I saw a beautiful old Gretsch f-hole electric hanging in the window of a
music store today.

Irrelevant to this subject.

Yes, I've often noted how important relevancy is in rec.boats.

I was at the supermarket yesterday and I saw some milk for sale.

On Nov 4, 9:10?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:40?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:30?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:29?pm, HK wrote:
Just read that Albemarle was bought out by Brunswick. Another famous
line goes in the crapper. Cabo was sold last year. Sad to see the
independents disappearing, since they build the best boats.
Where have you been, Harry?
Brunswick has owned Albermarle for quite while now. Basically, they
are built by the same group that makes Hatteras. Many of the upper
tier
trademarks built by Brunswick are pretty darn good boats.
I'm sure they were better boats when the companies that built them were
independent. The newest model Albemarle, for example, is wider and with
less deadrise than the model it will be replacing. That's corporate
conglomerate think for you...take a line of fishing boats and turn them
into something less.
Why would every boat in succession always have to be narrower and with
a deeper V than previous models? Perhaps the new model is intended for
slightly different conditions.
Slightly different conditions? Like what, flats fishing? Dockside condos?

There has been discussion for some time on the more serious "fishing"
boards about the downturn in quality in Cabos by those who know them
well, and the same is beginning to be said about Albemarles. These
comments come from experienced owners who actually know something about
these boats and others of their style. Guys who when they see a term
like "composite construction" used to describe a hull tend to say,
"composite what?"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep expressing a concern regarding the term "composite."

Yes, well, the question wasn't about "composite," but composite *what*?
I asked you that several times, and you never provided an answer.

I can appreciate the use of foamboard as the filling of a fiberglass
sandwich in the transom, but not in the hullsides or bottom. The only
materials I think suitable for the fiberglass "hull" are the various
cloths and resins, not foam or foam boards or fillers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Foam" is a poor choice below the waterline, but few of the
specialized cellular structures I see included in dry layups can be
properly characterized as a foam. With trade names like Corecell,
Divinycell, and others, these materials are normally introduced in a
flexible dry sheet, speicifically engineered to allow the most
efficient and uniform distribution and penetrataion of resin during
the vacuum infusion process There are channels of varying dimensions
cut through the material to allow the resin to flow. As a general
class, they do not absorb water. A "foam" core never really became in
integral part of the laminate to the same degree that the modern
"composite" materials do.

Technology often advances faster than the human willingness to accept
new ideas. Don't be surprised if the 1980's idea that "nothing but
rove and resin can ever be used below the waterline" eventually begins
to
be supplanted by materials that have proven suitable for the purpose.

At one time back in the 60's or early 70's a local boat builder
(Fairliner)
produced a series of boats that had fiberglass gunwales but were
plywood or planked from the chines to the keel. The marketing pitch of
the day was that they had "no fiberglass below the waterline!" They
sold pretty well to aging boaters who weren't entirely ready to trust
that experimental new material of the day, fiberglass. :-)

If it were just about building a boat as cheaply as possible, some of
the techniques used to produce the lower end FRP hulls in the past
were quite likely cheaper than vaccuum infused composite
construction.

Chuck Gould wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
You keep expressing a concern regarding the term "composite."
Yes, well, the question wasn't about "composite," but composite *what*?
I asked you that several times, and you never provided an answer.

I can appreciate the use of foamboard as the filling of a fiberglass
sandwich in the transom, but not in the hullsides or bottom. The only
materials I think suitable for the fiberglass "hull" are the various
cloths and resins, not foam or foam boards or fillers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



"Foam" is a poor choice below the waterline, but few of the
specialized cellular structures I see included in dry layups can be
properly characterized as a foam. With trade names like Corecell,
Divinycell, and others, these materials are normally introduced in a
flexible dry sheet, speicifically engineered to allow the most
efficient and uniform distribution and penetrataion of resin during
the vacuum infusion process There are channels of varying dimensions
cut through the material to allow the resin to flow. As a general
class, they do not absorb water. A "foam" core never really became in
integral part of the laminate to the same degree that the modern
"composite" materials do.

Yes, Chuck, I know about these materials and how they are used. I've
seen them used in boat construction. That's not the point. They're foam,
albeit in "foamboard" form and I wouldn't buy a boat in which they were
used in the hull, aside from the transom and perhaps way above the
waterline. They're fine for decks, and for "furniture" in the cabin,
though.

There's no doubt foamboard makes for a lighter boat.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:42:13 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Brunswick has owned Albermarle for quite while now. Basically, they
are built by the same group that makes Hatteras. Many of the upper
tier
trademarks built by Brunswick are pretty darn good boats. Sometimes
people make the mistake of looking at the cheapest entry level product
a corporation builds and then presuming that no matter what point they
buy into the product line or what trademark they get the quality will
be no better than the least expensive, entry level "leader" item the
corporation builds.

I think that there's always a concern when a large corporation buys
into a smaller company that quality will suffer. The business
rationale for the merger is almost always cost reduction. If those
cost saves are not realized in an intelligent way, and if the
corporate culture of the smaller firm is seriously disrupted, then
there is no guarantee that high quality will continue. On the other
hand if the new corporate parent invests in better production methods
that are also more efficient, that could turn out to improve overall
quality. You just have to wait and see.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:10:43 -0500, HK wrote:

The only
materials I think suitable for the fiberglass "hull" are the various
cloths and resins, not foam or foam boards or fillers.

From the very beginning fiberglass boat builders have been using core
material in strategic places to add thickness and stiffness without
adding weight. Unsupported fiberglass by itself is not a particularly
good structural material. Wood was probably the first core material
and is still very popular. The trick is to properly protect it from
moisture and rot. If you take a look at well built offshore boats
like Bertram, Hatteras and Grand Banks you will find a lot of
structural wood. The secret is to use high quality material and
protect it well. Fiberglass combined with any type of core material
is a composite.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:10:43 -0500, HK wrote:

The only
materials I think suitable for the fiberglass "hull" are the various
cloths and resins, not foam or foam boards or fillers.

From the very beginning fiberglass boat builders have been using core
material in strategic places to add thickness and stiffness without
adding weight. Unsupported fiberglass by itself is not a particularly
good structural material. Wood was probably the first core material
and is still very popular. The trick is to properly protect it from
moisture and rot. If you take a look at well built offshore boats
like Bertram, Hatteras and Grand Banks you will find a lot of
structural wood. The secret is to use high quality material and
protect it well. Fiberglass combined with any type of core material
is a composite.


Yeah, Hatteras is well-known for using a lot of "structural wood" in its
hullsides and bottoms, right, Wayne? Jeez.

Properly protected wood is just fine in stringers, bulkheads, transoms,
et cetera.

But that wasn't what was being discussed. Hulls were.

Does that high transom, dead transmission RV of yours have wood in its
hullsides or bottom? Well, hopefully if it does, it isn't balsa.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:12:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Properly protected wood is just fine in stringers, bulkheads, transoms,
et cetera.

But that wasn't what was being discussed. Hulls were.

THe hull is more than just topsides and bottoms, and the transom is
part of the hull also, last time I looked. Encapsulation and strength
of core material is the key but I agree that the bottom and hull sides
should ideally be uncored. If you do that however, you have to
stiffen them up in some other way, and increasing the thickness of the
glass laminate is an inefficient way to do it. The traditional way is
to add internal structure, typically encapsulated wood, another form
of composite construction.