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.

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 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.

Wayne.B wrote:
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.

That's an area of agreement, previously acknowledged.

On Nov 4, 8:12 pm, HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:10:43 -0500, HK

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

"Balsa" = "Bayliner"

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:32:58 -0800, Tim wrote:

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

"Balsa" = "Bayliner"

Quite a few supposedly high quality sailboats have also been built
with balsa cored hulls. Many of them have turned into expensive
junk.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:32:58 -0800, Tim wrote:

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
"Balsa" = "Bayliner"

Quite a few supposedly high quality sailboats have also been built
with balsa cored hulls. Many of them have turned into expensive
junk.


I'm sure Chuck will tell us of the virtues of balsa as a core material.
I wouldn't even consider buying a boat with a balsa core. I also don't
buy into the boat broker b.s. that osmosis blistering is no big deal.
Those guys will do anything to move used boats. I don't want a boat
whose bottom is as pustuled and pockmarked as a $3.00 whore.