under-floor foam |
Post Reply |
Author | |
MourningWood
Gold Member Joined: June-13-2014 Location: NorCal Status: Offline Points: 885 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: June-09-2017 at 1:27pm |
Contemplating an early SN requiring stringer/floor job. Have read much here.
Question: Why replace the foam? If it is such a problematic issue, why not delete it? Could flotation be achieved by packing the underside of deck and gunnels? |
|
Dreaming
Platinum Member Joined: May-21-2010 Location: Tacoma, WA Status: Offline Points: 1870 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
that's been a hot debate in the past, you might try searching using the Google feature but several guys have opted out of foam for exactly the reason you describe. the USCG does require a specific amount of floatation from the factory, and changing the amount of flotation and the location may affect an insurance outcome should your boat ever find itself under the water, so definitely proceed with caution.
|
|
gun-driver
Grand Poobah Joined: July-18-2008 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I would like to see how much flotation water soaked foam actually adds.
I for one did not put foam back in, I'm not really concerned about how much the insurance company is going to pay off on a 30+ year old boat. |
|
Dreaming
Platinum Member Joined: May-21-2010 Location: Tacoma, WA Status: Offline Points: 1870 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Paul - Certainly not trying to throw stones at anyone who has opted out of the foam discussion, just trying to make the point that it might affect how the insurance company would respond to a sinking/total loss situation. I don't want to afford another boat, so it's a part of the equation for me, as was purchasing a fiberglass stringered boat so that I didn't have to do stringers. Your point about water soaked foam is certainly valid in my opinion, but adjusters don't work for me, or respond to logical arguments from my past experience with insurance companies. I love the older boats too, and some day may bring one back, and would probably opt for no foam.
|
|
gun-driver
Grand Poobah Joined: July-18-2008 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I really doubt an insurance adjuster is going to pull up the floor to see how much foam is underneath of it.
They're going to pull it out check to see if all the parts are there motor/tranny etc. do a quick look for an obvious reason why it sunk then write you a big fat check for about $3,500 after they deduct for torn upholstery hours on the meter and what not. That's why I only have liability on my '85 it's not worth paying the extra insurance in case it sinks or you wreck it, you'll be upside down in a hurry compared to what they're going to give you. You'd be better off taking that money and putting it away somewhere and saving it for a down payment on the next one. I just went through this for a '93 Honda that I had and some lady wrecked into me and totaled it. The car had 350,00 miles on it but it was mechanically sound, I drove it 100 miles round trip to work and home. I had just put a new head on it rotors brakes and drums all the way around and an exhaust and a few other things. I had to fight to try to recover 1/4th the money I just put into it. What they ended up paying me for it would barely cover a good set of tires for my F-250. Enough of the off topic rant the reason I didn't put the foam back in is 1) I wanted the boat light as possible and 2) the obvious didn't want to trap water under the floor next to all new wood and glass. |
|
Duane in Indy
Platinum Member Joined: October-26-2015 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 1578 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I added foam in the "dry areas" where I knew water would not waterlog the foam. None under the floor (or sole, sorry P) As for insurance, I opted for agreed value. Same as my hot rods. That way you get a check for the "agreed value" and not some deflated book price. Not much per year. Waterlogged foam won't float much weight. JMO |
|
Keep it as original as YOU want it
1978 Mustang (modified) |
|
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21107 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Duane gets it, well said.
I believe it was FrankT who had a (waterlogged) foamed boat end up on the bottom. |
|
gun-driver
Grand Poobah Joined: July-18-2008 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have an agreed value on my '95 Signature Edition, never bothered on the '85 may check into it now since it's been completely redone.
Like Kris said if the insurance company wants to get $hitty about it, adding foam to where you believe it will help may not fly. I really don't see them getting that into it unless they think you're trying to scam them. After pulling the heavy wet foam out of mine I have to agree with what Tim said, I don't see wet foam doing much of anything in the way of flotation. |
|
GottaSki
Grand Poobah Joined: April-21-2005 Location: NE CT Status: Offline Points: 3327 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yes, one can.
other boats put foam in the very bow, and under the gunnels, and a few strips below the floor strapped in with glass. Its basically for recovery purposes. CC chose to cavity fill like a ranger or whaler, to get the 'solid' feel and relative quietness in chop, and look at me, one can cut a hole with a chain saw and it still floats and drives effect, if you're into such things.. Might be handy in a log-ridden river. my non cc, had to remove some bow foam to make bow storage that was absent in the early models. so, just threw some pool noodles under the new floor. still lets the air circulate, and water drain away, ensures the boat remains recoverable. |
|
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing."
River Rat to Mole |
|
8122pbrainard
Grand Poobah Joined: September-14-2006 Location: Three Lakes Wi. Status: Offline Points: 41040 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
"for recovery purposes" is a key consideration for anyone thinking about foam or none. I personally feel no foam is the way to go but, if you are doing a stringer job, it should be done better than the factory. With CPES and careful glassing with epoxy, wet foam should not create a moisture issue with the wood. I also feel that injecting foam into cavities is better than pouring. Injecting creates a skin on the foam outer surfaces that prevents water being absorbed. Pouring foam requires cutting the top surface off to level it and this opens up the cells. |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |