Reply With QuoteNot good however to be expected with any boat of this age. If I ever bought one with the intent to keep, I reckon I would do it anyway.Originally Posted by simon656
Klegecell is the best in my mind
Not good however to be expected with any boat of this age. If I ever bought one with the intent to keep, I reckon I would do it anyway.
Con, Keep in mind that core materials be they Divinicell, Corecell, Klegercell etc are much, much lighter than timber. Therefore you will need a heavy glass layup over the top to get back to desired weight.
Regards,
Spiro
Spiro,
I have a very good friend that is a naval architect, as a favor, he has calculated and designed the laminate schedule, fuel tank, console, twin outboard bracket / pod, batteries position etc, etc.
So I have a good head start.
Regards Con
Hi Con,
What brand of epoxy do you favor, heard varying reports on all of them,
Cheers Simon
Sounds like you've got a great head start Con,
Only reason I mentioned it is because it has been over-looked by many previously. As a result boats have ended up very unstable at rest and very flighty. The 233, like many other deep V boats, benefits from weight below the water line.
As you are converting to a CC, you have the added advantage of lower center of gravity. It will definitely be a different/better boat when finished.
Simon,
simon656
Re: F233 stringer replacement
Hi Con,
What brand
of epoxy do you favor, heard varying reports on all of them,
Cheers
Simon
My first choice would be R180 by FGI ( Nuplex ) as I have an account with them and is well priced.
Second would be West Systems R105 supplied in Australia by ATL Composites.
Both these companies have other variations of epoxy available, mainly for Hi Tec applications.
I've used both brands of resins without any failure and are easy to use.
Hope that helps.
Regards Con
Cheers Con,
Seems R180 is about half the price of the west system. r180 is hard to come by in Victoria
Simon,
Here's the address of the FGI ( Nuplex ) in your area.
1612-1638 Centre Road
Springvale VIC 3171
Tel: (03) 9550 5650 (03) 9550 5650
Fax: (03) 9547 5179
Regards Con
Hi Spiro,
Any news from HH about getting a look at those old F233 plans?
No Simon, not yet mate. Too much going on at the moment. Boat show has them all very busy.
No worries mate please keep me informed when you hear something.
G'day Simon,
I stumbled accross an article from Modern Boating 1966 which reviews the very first 233 built in Australia. It is an interesting read and one that clears up a few points for us. The transom pad and gunwale strip or hull/deck join CANNOT be used to identify whether and early 233 was built in America or Australia. As the article contains build specs, it also provides dry hull weight (believe it or not, just shy of 1100kg's).
Anyway, give me call when you get a chance and we'll discuss further.
Regards,
Spiro
1100kg would be about the right build weight Spiro as opposed to the "odd" thinking these days that much heavier makes a better boat.
That weight figure fits in well when you consider other boats. Say for example a Savage Marlin/Bluefin at around 1000kg. Bertram 20 about the same. Bertram 25 flybridge (bare) around 1700kg. The original formula could have probably been maybe 100kg heavier?
I will never understand the overbuilding of boats as it means less performance and more hp required to make it go. Overweight is all bad IMO.
heavier hull stays in the water better and cuts through the chop,the extra weight improves the ride, with the modern engines its still economical,the original 233,s did 45 mph with the twin 165 mercruisers,the heavier edencrafts still do that with twin 150 hp out boards so they havnt lost any performance just got better in the rough.
and as for old thinking ,have a look at the haines hunters for example ,building them heavier so are cruise craft,.
the old saying theres no replacement for displacement
Posting Permissions
