On Nov 5, 11:35?am, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
roups.com...

With crude oil well over $90/bbl and forecast to hit $100 by the end
of the year, we could easily see $4- $4-50 a gallon at gas stations
and
maybe $6 at fuel docks during next spring's annual gas gouge. If
boating is to survive as a pastime and if the manufacturers hope to
sell enough boats to survive, the industry has to get some weight out
of the boats without sacrificing strength. The solid, hand rolled
laminate hull is being supplanted with better alternatives, made
possible in part by vacuum infused molding.

Making boats lighter has more implications than saving a few bucks worth of
fuel.

Leave them heavy and drive slower, I say.

Eisboch

I love this line, since it is right out of the PR Department's
bullship-ometer:

"The solid, hand rolled laminate hull is being supplanted with better
alternatives..."

Right, of course.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure you consider Hinckley a piece of crap. None of their lobster
or picnic style boats would ever compare to yours, I'm certain of
that.

If you might be interested in a general description of how a well
respected E Coast boat is built, follow this link:

http://hinckleyyachts.com/home.html

Select "Under the Skin", and then select item 5 on the illustration.

Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the
bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know
they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat.
Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to
anything Hinckley is putting out.....right?

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:32:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the
bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know
they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat.
Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to
anything Hinckley is putting out.....right?

I'll admit it right up front - I had my doubts about vacuum bagging
with foam core up and until I saw the process being done.

I'm convinced now that it's a pretty good method given the proper
materials in the manufacturing process. In my opinion, which matters
little I realize, it's a better method than the Ranger hand laid
glass, foam fill method.

Stratos has been using the technique for a while using Kevlar/Carbon
composite weave and those boats are tough.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:32:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the
bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know
they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat.
Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to
anything Hinckley is putting out.....right?

I'll admit it right up front - I had my doubts about vacuum bagging
with foam core up and until I saw the process being done.

I'm convinced now that it's a pretty good method given the proper
materials in the manufacturing process. In my opinion, which matters
little I realize, it's a better method than the Ranger hand laid
glass, foam fill method.

Stratos has been using the technique for a while using Kevlar/Carbon
composite weave and those boats are tough.


I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Why?

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Why?

I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

--Vic

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:10:00 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Why?

I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

I've heard that before, but I'm not at all sure that it is true with
closed cell foam.

I saw a 12 year old Ranger 318 VS when it was being cut up and the
foam flotation looked brand new.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:10:00 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.
Why?
I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

I've heard that before, but I'm not at all sure that it is true with
closed cell foam.

I saw a 12 year old Ranger 318 VS when it was being cut up and the
foam flotation looked brand new.

Fresh water bass boats don't take much of a pounding. Besides, they have
low sides. Further, we're not talking about flotation.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:14:38 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:10:00 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Why?

I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

I've heard that before, but I'm not at all sure that it is true with
closed cell foam.

I saw a 12 year old Ranger 318 VS when it was being cut up and the
foam flotation looked brand new.

I'm not up on the techniques used to core hulls, or the materials, but
when I was reading up on it I concluded my preference would be solid
FRP hull.
With a sailboat like a Mac 26X/M you get that, and "unsinkable"
flotation elsewhere.
The Carolina Skiff and Boston Whaler have the flotation in the hull.
I see on the CS forum that some owners have delamination problems,
and in a recent post the problem was so bad an owner started taking on
water. They sometimes get their boats replaced under warranty and
CS seems to be a stand-up outfit.
But I'm starting to have second thoughts about owning one.
I haven't heard about Whalers having these problems, but haven't
really tried looked at them hard.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.
Why?

I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

--Vic

There's that, there's the thinner skins on each side, there's the water
that can get between the foam and the skins when the skins work...

On Nov 5, 6:10 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any
boat with foam in between the hull skins.

Why?

I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's
structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex.
Yep. That's what I remember reading.

--Vic

I'd like to see some data, pictures, etc. backing that claim up!
Whoever wrote such sounds just like some old fart that's afraid of new
technology no matter what!