Foam vs. No foam

There have been a handful of discussions on this already. Have you tried using the search function?

Cool. A domain restricted Google search can sometimes be handy.

Foam won right?

I definately like the idea of refoaming from the stand point of it came that way from the factory. And I also like the idea of pool noodles. Have not made a decision yet on what i'm going to use.

I think its a given that if you choose not to refoam, then the structural rigidity that the foam provides (hull-foam-floor sandwich) should be replaced with something else. Most choose to glass in horizontal ribs.

I just think it would be funny to see the look on a prospective buyers face when you guys tell them:
"Oh yea, the hull is chuck full of pool noodles."

TRBenj wrote: Fair enough... at least the 1st gen (60's) hulls have been proven to be fine without the foam (and no additional support). Not sure we can say the same about the 70's hulls, as foam was standard by then. I guess I would strip the boat in question down to the bare hull and see how much it flexes under load before deciding that supports were unnecessary.

I agree and have a tendency to say the 70's hulls can take it without exra support.

Regarding the pool noodles, I'll use one of Tims favorite terms: they are just too "fugly"!!

BuffaloBFN wrote: It's not 'fugly'?

You are correct! I wish I had some typing skills!! I did edit the post!!

DrCC wrote: I just think it would be funny to see the look on a prospective buyers face when you guys tell them: "Oh yea, the hull is chuck full of pool noodles."

Hahahah....

From what I've read here since owning a SN, I reckon the foam causes more issues than what it's worth. I totally understand why it's there - positive flotation, structural integrity, sound absorption etc etc, but you only need a light nick in the floor skin and the thing starts filling up with water, with no where to escape.

I don't think there's ever been a 70's 80's or 90's hull manufactured in Oz that had foam under the floor - Lewy may correct me on that one though.

Most hulls have 3 bungs on the transom, a centre for the bilge and two outers to drain the underfloors, if any water was to enter. Some wake boarding guys with older boats have rebuilt the floors to hold ballast water using a gel coating inside.

I reckon if I ever need to redo the floors on mine I'd go no foam.

That's my 2 cents anyway

peter1234 wrote: or mice get in during the winter .

Dried coyote urine in old nylons works wonders. Available at Ace. Some also use drier anti static sheets too.

thanks pete yes i use drier sheets now in all the cars and the boat seems to work well . i have had a hard time getting the coyotes to go on my wifes nylons they seem to want to do something else to her leg.... yes she has nice legs

MIskier wrote: There are some definite trade offs to be considered when re foaming a boat. 1) It does serve as to add some structural integrity to the boat, but these boats are overbuilt for the types of hull loads that they encounter. 2) Does help quiet the boat down while underway. 3) Most importantly is the added buoyancy that it gives the hull. When originally designed these boats had to be able to pass a level flotation test. Without the foam in the hull if there is a catastrophic breach of the hull your boat will not be able to survive fully swamped.

Lemme just say   

Is there a year range or cut-off point for the second part of # 1?

Not really the boats have been built lighter over the years, but never to the point that hull loads would become an issue unless you enjoy regularly parking your boat on rock piles.

Correct Crafts, there are plenty of production boats out there that have had little structural calcs done on them. MC and CC though are way over built if you ever look at a lam schedule for one of them.

That is not something that you will be able to get a hold of, but if you pull out a thru-hull fitting you can see your hull thickness.