Foam vs. No foam

Agreed, thicken your skin that was just good old fashioned salesman bashing!

The layup in the non foamed areas of my 83 was thicker than in the originally foamed areas

This likely had more to do with the proximity to keel, larger span between stringers, relative flatness of the area in question, etc. than the simple fact that the area wasn’t foamed but nonetheless the bilge where I cut through for the paddle wheel was 3x thicker than the area forward between the stringers that I cut through due to carelessness.

I dont disagree that the layup on a skiboat is in general considerably more substancial than is required by the loading seen on the hull during normal use.. however I tend to not discount the abnoral situations very quickly. I am not sure that I wouldnt possibly see a rock, log, or worse at some point (hopefully not at speed but it can't be ruled out).   Even a broken or poorly designed trailer or hoist bunk can provide significantly larger point loading than a boat sees in normal use.

My position remains that you dont need no rottin, stinkin foam.. but if you simply remove it and dont give any thought to replaceing the benefits it supplies you may (although likely not on most of these boats) someday regret it..

Bashing is part of competition. The salesman I refer to was actualy a sales rep from Mastercraft and our conversation started out with him telling me how Malibu and Nautique were poor quality boats compared to a Mastercraft, he was bashing. When I told him I owned a fairly new Malibu, he backed off, but I told him he wasn't hurting my feelings and I wanted him to show me why he thought his boats were better. He went on for a half hour. I was impressed with the thick plug he showed me and I asked him if maybe due to all that weight from the thickness of the hull was the reason why the Pro Stars are so slow out of the hole and at top end. He actually told me they were designed to be slow as ski boats don't need to be fast. Tim, I think that was the Sunday after the Saturday that you guys were eating Cheezits in his boats.

Anyone ever try putting a match to a pool noodle?

On a 20+ year old boat?! I highly doubt that got saved during the move.

Haha very funny you're all so original with your MC bashing.

Riley wrote: Pete, the MC salesman at the Boston show showed me a cut out from the bottom of a hull and it was about 3/4" or maybe even an inch thick.     Course, as you note, maybe they build them up around their through hulls and that's not a good representation of how thick their hulls are, although that's the claim he was making.

Ha, it sounds like that salesman was... a salesman.

Ive dissected a few CC's and the hull thickness can approach 1/2" or more in a few places- namely the keel, or around certain through hull hardware. Most areas of the hull are much thinner- between 1/8" and 1/4", generally speaking.

BuffaloBFN wrote: I'd luv to see the lam schedule for an 88 BFN. How does one get that info? And don't say 'Ancient Chinese secret'.

MIskier wrote: 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.

What's the big problem with getting the layup? Maybe with a MC since they don't want people to know just how thin their hulls are???!!

Greg, all that's needed is to call Dave.

BTW, pulling a thru-hull to see the lay up isn't the greatest idea. Decent boat builders will build up the area with a couple more layers of glass.

I'd luv to see the lam schedule for an 88 BFN. How does one get that info? And don't say 'Ancient Chinese secret'.    

You're talking CC's or boats in general?

FWIW-That topic has been beaten long past when the horse looked like a horse around here.   

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.

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."

Clinch the sale, imo

i used pool noodles . i see particles once in a while so i assume either they break down in time or mice get in during the winter .

As much time and money as I have in this boat, selling it will NEEEEVER be an option!

If i end up using pool noodles, I will be putting in some ribs just for a little extra support for the floor.

It's not 'fugly'?

JoeinNY wrote: TRBenj wrote: 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 would say it is a given in a 82+ SN, it is my choice but debateable in 70s hulls of all type.. but you get into the first gen fiberglass hulls where some where not foamed to begin with and well.. given would be a strong word.

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.