42' Alden Yawl laminated restoration suggestions??

[Wolftransportgroup]

Just started with a restoration of a classic Alden Yawl 1938. Have the boat in a fully enclosed tent in NJ and am considering restoring the boat using West system or Epiglass from Interlux. She has been on the high and dry for almost 2 years, but is quite sound.(although she is quite dry)After I plan to repair some broken ribs and replace planks and refasten hull I thought about laminating the boat. Is this a good time to sheath the hull with thin strips instead of caulking and laminate with epoxy? or would it be a better idea to laminate hull with thin veneers( esentially cold mold over planks)? Trying to make a tight sound, seaworthy boat to use for pleasure and some classic regattas. Please let me hear some advice??

[Stephen Hutchins]

If you get what you have nice and fair, and then laminate two diagonal layers over that, you've got yourself a cold-molded boat. I don't see anything wrong with that. I should add that you're displacement volume will change.

[ 10-20-2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Hutchins ]

[RGM]

Why not restore the vessel as originally constructed? Besides being high and dry for two years you state that she is quite sound. You plan on doing some frame and planking replacements and refastening anyway. Why try to cover it with veneers? Not an easy job to do correctly,if there really is such a thing. Much higher degree of success with doing that to power boat hulls. Alot less going on in the way of physics, stress and strain.
What kind of shape are the keel bolts in? Floor timbers? Frame heel to floor timber fasteners. Unless those items (and many more)are in excellent condition your veneer job will quickly become a high priced, leaky wicker basket. Consider doing a conventional restoration.

[Jagermeister]

It is my understanding that in a cold molded hull the venners are thin enough, opposed to each other, and sealed in epoxy, so that they essentially cancel any movement of the wood with changes in moisture content, and provide a relatively rigid hull.

Thin veneers over a planked hull may not be rigid enough to resist changes in the hull when the planks shrink or swell with moisture changes, or when the planking racks slightly with respect to the venners during flexing (the motion that is nornally accomodated by the seams). From what I understand, all of that motion combines to delaminate the epoxy. If you really wanted a cold-molded hull, you would probably be better off building a normal thickness cold-molded hull using the original hull as a mold, and then removing the old planking and frames. Then you would have a regular cold-molded hull.

[sdowney717]

Here is bulletproof method for watertight hull
Use permaflex
Then coat with thickened LRB
then coat over again with permaflex.

Or you could just repair frames, caulk seams with polyurethane caulk then coat with 2 coats of permaflex.

www.sanitred.com (http://www.sanitred.com)

[Carlsboats]

Unless you are going to laminate an addl. skin that is really strong, I think you are headed for trouble. As the old, inner hull takes up moisture, it is going to set up large stresses in a couple of thin layers of veneer, and I doubt that the skin will take it.
One of the famous Sparkman & Stephens boats was
rebuilt this way, but the owner did a huge amount of work to make it successful -- drying out the old hull thoroughly, taking off a fair amount of wood, and adding multiple layers of new hull with buckets of fastenings. He kept track of the weights, and found that the new hull is tons heavier than the old one dry, but about the same as the old one wet. So she floats at the same waterline and is good as new. But the key, he tells me, is that the outer shell he added is not just a skin, but a fully structural member.

[TimothyB]

This is an old discussion here, an you'll hear from both sides of the fence. smile.gif

Basically, you have to decide if you want to keep her original, or you want to put a modern hull around her. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Assuming you want to go the 'sheathe the boat' route, there are a few tried and true methods of doing just that.

1) Fiberglass and epoxy sheathing. You fix up the hull, make sure all the fasteners, frames and deadwood are ok, route out the caulking seams and spline them with softwood, then cover the whole boat with several layers of fiberglass and epoxy. This will stiffen up the boat a bit (the splining will), the FG will provide puncture/abrasion resistance and the epoxy will keep the water off the wood. Some folks advocate epoxy coating the inside of the boat too.

2) Laminated veneers. Still need to fix up the hull but you don't need to be picky about the surface condition of the planking, nor do you need to spline the hull. You layer strips of 1/8" wood veneer diagonally, at least 3 layers, over the entire hull using epoxy as the bonding agent. There are also those folks whom have done 2 layers of 1/4" plywood. Then you top it off with a layer of fiberglass or Xynole and epoxy.

3) Other methods. There are a lot of other methods, some patented (C-Flex, etc) that you could use to do this as well.

The bottom line is to decide first do you want to do this? There is almost no turning back from this sort of conversion. If you do want to, then you have to decide which method suits your boat depending on its condition.

I'd recommend at least getting Wooden Boat Renovation (http://www.woodenboatstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=300-298) and reading it through before committing to this sort of thing. It is a serious decision and you should have some idea of your alternatives.

[sdowney717]

You will hear all the same stuff pushed for years, the bottom epoxiers will say put on a coat of glass and epoxy. But unless you do something to prevent water from creating wet dry cycles from the inside stressing the wood fibers where they meet rigid glass and epoxy all you will have is a big problem where either the glass tears free from the wood or the glass cracks under the pressure. If you will make the fiberglass layer thick enough then you will prevent the cracking but still have the issue of separation from the wood and add probably too much weight. To deal with the separation, you can run large heavy staples thru the wet glass into the wood to hold the glass on the wood.
I suppose a staple such as used for electrical wiring would work but then it will eventually corode.
That is why a rubberized flexible bottom made of a material which will stick to clean wood and wont fall off but will move when the wood moves is what you want.

You could also try epoxy with Dynel fabric. Dynel will stretch whereas fiberglass cloth will not but will crack or break free.
Frankly my idea of the permaflex and LRB will be the least labor intensive and probably the longest lasting way to keep a totally dry hull free from any worm damage and if you use the LRB, will even prevent the hull from being holed if you hit something underwater. At least upto a certain point anyway.

[sdowney717]

By the way think truck tire on the bottom of the boat.
You thicken the LRB to a paste like consistency, then using a notched trowel go over the bottom. When that sets up, you fill in the areas between the notches with a staight trowel.
Then top coat with a layer of permaflex.
The LRB will cure to any thickness and is advertised on their site as having the strength of tire rubber.

[Bob Cleek]

Well, I suppose I'm getting too old and too curmudgeonly to waste time on this forum, but once in a while, I can't control myself.

ALL of the above posts are totally off the wall. I suppose WoodenBoat magazine and this forum and the "wooden boat rennaisance" have brought a lot of interested folks into the game, but they don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. They've just read enough to get themselves in real trouble, and now through the magic of the internet, they are spreading that misinformation all over the place.

If you just bought a classic 1938 Rolls Royce that needed restoration, would you consider covering it with fibreglass or epoxy so it "wouldn't rust?"

You have a 1938 Alden. Yes, this boat is a classic. It was likely built by one of the premier yards of the day. They built it to be maintained and repaired effeciently. That is still possible today. If you sheath the hull, she will no longer be repairable as the builders and designers intended and you will no longer have a classic boat. You will simply have another classic boat that some horse's ass who had no clue what he was doing, or thought he knew more than John Alden, screwed up beyond all redemption. Owning a true classic is a responsibility. Fifty or a hundred years from now, do you want your Alden masterpiece to be a valuable, and beautiful, historic artifact or landfill?

About thirty years ago, back in my yacht brokering days, we had a beautiful Alden schooner by the name of Tradition up for sale. About the age of your boat. These were the days when fibreglass was all the rage. The selling owner had decided that rather than caulk and refasten the bottom, as was needed, he had a better idea. At great expense, he had the bottom fibreglassed. He figured it wouldn't stick too well, so he had screws driven into the bottom all over the place, left standing proud, and fibreglassed the screw heads into the sheathing so the sheathing would stick to the hull. This was supposed to ensure that "she'd never leak another drop." Well, that was unmitigated bull****. That fibreglassed bottom made that boat practically impossible to sell. As I recall, it finally sold for far less than it was really worth, given that the buyer knew what they were looking at and discounted his offer to allow for removing the glass and restoring her "as built." Don't you make the same mistake. The people who are pontificating above have no idea what they are talking about and their advice does your boat a grave disservice. Oh, I know, they'll disagree with me and I'll hear that there's more than one way to skin a cat or build a boat. And they are still wrong. Doing whatever repairs may be required properly will cost you far less in the long run and last far longer.

On a boat as fine as yours, it is your obligation to do each job right, consistent with the original designer's intent. Please do. Our wooden boat heritage is in your hands. Don't f**k it up!

[ 10-21-2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

[paladin]

Luv ya Robt....
I wanna say something like that but my mommy would wanna wash my mouth out with lye soap.. :D :D

[Nicholas Carey]

What RMG and Cleek said.

I think the only real rationale for sheathing the hull would be if (big if) it was in such bad shape structurally that that was the practical way shy of building a new hull to keep the boat going.

[sdowney717]

Does a wooden boat have any real value except to the current owner?
There are a lot of different ways to make a boat float. Just pick your poisen, each and every restoration approach has its good points and bad.

If the conventional tried and true way of plank on frame construction has left so many boats eventually in the crusher anyway, just what is the point.

[Jagermeister]

Bob, I thought that's what I was saying. That the only way to get a cold-molded hull from the Alden was to use the Alden as a mold and then throw it away. I had hoped the absurdity of my proposition would expose it for what it was - an admonition to repair it properly.

[Bob Cleek]

Right, Jaeg... I was painting with a broad brush there, I guess. LOL Your membership in the "smart guys club" is in good standing!

[sdowney717]

Mike,
so true, unless an owner is willing to continually repair his plank on frame wooden boat he should not be its owner.

There must be many stupid dum wooden boat owners out there since so many have already been destroyed.
And it just wont stop until most of them are gone.

[emichaels]

I have been making my living working wood for 25 years and one thing I know for sure is it is not possible to restrain the effects of water moving in/out of wood. Just save yourself a lot of touble, time and money and self respect and restore the boat as it was designed. IMHO

[Patrick Miller]

I couldn't agree more with the "no sheathing of the hull" advice. I'm currently in the painstaking process of removing Dynel/epoxy from my 20' boat. It's quite clear as I go along that the boat has already removed some of it on her own. Regardless of how the sheathing job is done, water will find its way into wood; water does that. Actually water will find its way into most places. I had a fibreglass boat once which had a terrible osmosis problem.

If only the Dynel/epoxy had let go consistently all over the boat my problems would be solved. smile.gif Bob Cleek's story is so true - whatever trouble you go to to sheath the hull, you or someone else will have to go to an even greater effort to get it off again.

What I'm discovering as I get rid of the sheathing is the poetry of the planking. There's a "rightness" to the way carvel planks are fitted to the sweet curves of a hull. While I'm grateful that my boat is only 20' long while I'm taking off epoxy (with a heat gun and a sharp scraper), I can't help feeling a little envious of a 38' Alden!

[ 10-21-2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Patrick Miller ]

[RodB]

Bob said it best....and straight and true.

RB

[StevenBauer]

There is a series of articles on boat restoration running in WoodenBoat Magazine right now. Definitly worth reading. Got any pictures?

Steven

[sdowney717]

This is what allmost all conventional plank on frame boats eventually have or develop

Leaky Boat Syndrome
Deteriorated wasted fasteners
cracked and rotten frames
worn out plank edges
wormy gribble eaten cracked planks
A boat that sinks at the dock
A boat that you are afraid to take out on long trips or risk others life on.
A boat you are left wondering if the power fails and the batteries run down the boat will sink.
Worn out plank edges
heavy seas opening a seam and sinking the boat
No monetary value because people know the work required to bring it back is more than they are willing to pay.
And the continual upkeep is more time than they are willing to give.
And if they let it go, like many people eventually will do, they know it will be mulch.
A boat that is continually degrading and losing strength over time just by being itself.

[sdowney717]

Gribbles, a pest on the comeback
They are coming back because water quality has improved and they are voracious appetite for wood.
Something else to think about now in addition to worms.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0423_040423_gribbles.html

[sdowney717]

Hey,
I am not the only one putting a polyurethane coating on the bottom of their prized boat.
The RotDoctor is doing the sam to his big 1894 tug. they also sell a polyurethane coating system which I am sure is more expensize.
Neither do I suggest simply putting this on an unsound boat. The hull framing should be properly strengthened before this coating is put on.
Another benefit Is you wont be dragging around waterlogged wood of a ton or more adding weight to the boat.

[Gary E]

Wolftransportgroup,

Why do you think that boats like the one you have are bought cheap today? Ya think that it's because there are new fangled materials like some here have described? or that it can be fixed with just a little effort on your part? and your end up with a new version of a antique boat?..

GET REAL...

The guy you bot it from had the 2nd best day in his boating life...
The DAY HE SOLD IT TO YOU !!!!

If you intend to float that boat within 3 yrs, fix it correctly, and then maybe you will actually sail it some day and be able to sell it to someone else. If you do a half@ssed glass job, all you get is sticky sh!t all over the steering wheel of your car and a crappy boat that no one will want when your done.

If you want a glass boat, BUY ONE

[sdowney717]

Some recomendations from the Rotdoctor and using
polyurethane coatings on the hull.
Some of you are talking out of the wrong side of your head and no nothing about these products and have zero experience about them.
Making judgements about something which you know nothing about is foolish.

Tug bottom hull sealing
http://www.rotdoctor.com/L/BoatL/bQA170.html

waterproofness for the bottom
http://www.rotdoctor.com/L/BoatL/bQA195.html

Elastuff 120 recommendation on hull
http://www.rotdoctor.com/L/BoatL/bQA186.html

http://www.rotdoctor.com/poly/polymain.html

[Bob Smalser]

From one short glance at the Rotdoctor:


Woods that used to be fairly rot-resistant, such as cedar, rarely are anymore. This is because the new wood is usually farm-grown and lacks the accumulated resins and tightness of grain that gave old growth wood its longevity.

Anybody know of any plantation-grown cedar? Or cedar heartwood of any species that rots quickly?

As I've said before, believe 50% or less of what these folks have to say.

Folks that sound like carnival hucksters often are....and miracle cures usually require just that to work... a miracle.

[ 10-22-2005, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[sdowney717]

I did find someones mention of it here
http://www.steamradio.com/pipermail/multihulls/2003-January/016102.html
western red cedar is grown in plantations in Canada.

Search of google for "plantation grown cedar"
http://www.google.com/search?hs=FRd&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22plantation+grown+ cedar%22&btnG=Search

[mmd]

Let's see... so far on this thread there is a retired yacht broker, a wooden boat sailor who has circumnavigated the globe at least once, two professional boatbuilders, a professional woodworker, and now a naval architect - the combined wooden boat experience of these people probably totals close to two centuries - who are all adamant that the best method to restore the boat is to do it as it was designed and originally built.

Pretty stiff opposition, sdowney717.

See, the problem is that when you get to our fossilized age, you begin to get a bit leery of the "miracle materials" that are purported to cure all ills with wooden boats. We've seen so many of them come & go, and 'most all of them do not stand the test of time. Sure, they are great for getting that last few years out of a tired hull, but they usually last about five years or so and then create problems of their own. So you end up with a boat that needs repairs again but the very material that you used to fix the last problems complicates the new repairs. Applying a repair that has maybe a ten-year lifespan on a vessel that has a remaining life of about fifty or seventy-five years just doesn't make sense.

[sdowney717]

Designed with long-term performance in mind, Lifestyle Shutters start with hand selected, plantation grown cedar and basswoods,

http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/2b/0c03672b.asp

I am not here to win friends and buddy up to the wood gurus but I will most certainly expose information which should be obvious to all.

[mmd]

:rolleyes:

Keep tilting, son; you may yet unseat that windmill.

[Gary E]

Originally posted by sdowney717:
Designed with long-term performance in mind, Lifestyle Shutters start with hand selected, plantation grown cedar and basswoods,

http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/2b/0c03672b.asp

I am not here to win friends and buddy up to the wood gurus but I will most certainly expose information which should be obvious to all.Although Shutters have rain falling on them sometimes...
Are they waterproof like a boat or a buckett?
Do they LIVE IN WATER??

If ya want a glass boat, BUY ONE.

[Billy Bones]

Bob and others on the side of light, there was a grand editorial in Classic boat (Sternpost, John Perryman, Aug 2005) which you would all enjoy. I did. An excerpt...


In many instances [things were] 'the way things used to be' for a good reason and now no one seems to either know or care. That is the fundamental problem with instant information. It has no depth, no background, no tradition, no chance to learn by example.He goes on brilliantly.

I might suggest that anyone who wants to build a better mousetrap should ask themselves whether they truely have a new idea, or if they are simply ignorant or afraid of how the old mousetrap worked.

MMD you can crank in another few decades of experience as sailor and professional woodworker to the tally.

[sdowney717]

MMD,
The obvious arogance of some certain poster making an obvious irrational statement about cedar wood thrown out as an attempt to discredit an entire enterprises well established products line is simply amazing. It shows in bright light the truth that when something goes against a certain persons core beliefs they will obfuscate and try to cloud the issue in an attempt to mislead. IMO such individuals would rather be right at all cost including the murder of the truth just to try and be justified themselves.

[Stephen Hutchins]

I was just thinking: if I owned that Alden and IF I decided to veneer it, (big if) I would consider the possibilities of planing down the skin thickness of the existing hull by the thickness of the veneers. The amount planed off could be controlled by drilling into the plank the depth you wanted to take off. Then, I'd power plane it off, followed by a random orbit sander. Just a thought if you decided to go the veneer route. With all due respect to the above posters, veneering a hull like that brings it closer to monocoque constrution, (the frames acting as the inner layer) and I'm sure all will agree a monocoque built boat will hold its shape longer than a traditional boat. I have no idea which type would be less expensive in the long run. There are too many factors to consider. I will say traditional construction is much more enjoyable than modern ways, and if you are to do the work, this is definately something to consider in addition to cost.

[mmd]

Cedar is excellent boatbuilding wood. I don't doubt that the goop that rotdoctor is promoting a good product within certain limitations. We are just saying that it is not likely to be the best solution for restoration of a classic Alden yacht, for several reasons. I'm sorry if this offends you, but trying to convince experienced professionals that a material is good for marine use because it is good on window shutters is, well, somewhat daffy. Us old "been there, seen that" guys will be converted when the stuff has lasted a couple of decades without problem. Thus far, very few miracle goops stand the test of time, so we have a healthy mistrust for claims of miracles by neophytes.

(edited for a typo)

[ 10-22-2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[Gary E]

Is a Alden Yawl built in 1938 an investment or is it just another wood boat?

I would think that if it's an investment, changing the way it is built wether right or wrong will change it from investment class to just another wood boat class. We all know what happens to them, they rapidy loose value.

If on the other hand this is allready just another wood boat that has depriciated in value to the normal next to nothing, then anything you do to it may preserve what ever value it has and give it many more years of life. Now ask youself if it make sense to spend whatever you think it will cost to apply this new matierial, and decide for yourself.

If it were me, and I realize it's not, I would get a quote from a company experienced in doing this and add that to what I have into it now before deciding if I am going the right direction or just applying lipstick to a pig.

[7knots]

My two cents (what's it's worth):

Do you want to rennovate or restore? Me? I want to sail. What's the fastest way back to the water with the least expense and best performance?

You get a lot of boat for the money when you go wood. Most of these old wood boats are worth exactly what you pay for 'em - next to nothing. So even if you toast marshmellows with it, the "loss" is minimal - regardless of who built it or who took a poo in it.

Why is it when replanking/recaulking/frame replacement/varnishing is being done - this is GOOD... But when work to repair/upgrade/replace modern materials (glass/epoxy/polywhatever) is being done - this is BAD and is PROOF that modern approaches to old problem always FAIL. Where is the analysis of benefit to effort to resources invested? Or do you get TESTIMONIALS?

IF you preach to me, I'm going to assume you're religious and tune out. I'm not working on my boat based on your FAITH in the "that's the way it done" ways.

Oh, and "If you just bought a classic 1938 Rolls Royce that needed restoration, would you consider covering it with fibreglass or epoxy so it wouldn't rust?" -- it's called paint and it would be a modern fomulation and the answer would be YES.

[Bob Smalser]

This proposal is 9th Grade Wood Shop, gents, not Modern Materials 501.

Assuming a carvel hull this size is planked with new, riftsawn cedar, the planks will shrink over 1% when it's hauled out for 3 months in New Jersey. That's 1-2 inches in a crossgrain expanse of, say, 9 feet. Age and the resulting compression set make this phenomenon more, not less pronounced, in older boats, and yours can move twice that easily.

Cold-molding veneers do the same thing, but several 8th-inch veneers laid crossway's to each other don't move with any force to speak of and tend to cancel each other out.

Here we're talking about laying one or two layers of 8th-inch veneer atop and crossway's to old, 1 1/4" planks which will move with more than sufficient force to eventually split those veneers. You'd have the same effect laying up 8 layers of veneer oriented in one direction and another two layers crossway's to them, only ameliorated some by thorough epoxy saturation.

Epoxy slows it down...but unfortunately there's no way to thoroughly saturate inch-plus thick planks with epoxy.

Add aged keelbolts and floors about to gap your garboards to the equation, and you may have a real disaster in a few short years.

You can do it to get back in the water...but I can't think of a more high-risk way to do it...not to mention how much more difficult it will be to repair that boat, either another dozen years down the road or when those garboards sag next season.

[ 10-23-2005, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[TimothyB]

Man you guys are rough! I think our friend who posted this was looking for advice, not to be taken to the woodshed! :)

And Monsieur Cleek, when you said "all the above posts were off the wall" I take exception to that.. I -specifically- said that it was a serious decision, and that he should read more about boat renovation before he decided to do ANYTHING with sheathing. Nyah. smile.gif

That being said, Tim and Pauline Carr did exactly what I mentioned, laminate veneers over their old wooden boat (Curlew) with epoxy and fiberglass over the lot. Their boat is a 28 foot, over 100 year old wooden boat and they did the job years and years ago, and she is still going strong. They've been places in that little boat many folks would just as soon avoid (Antarctica, The Falklands, etc) and she has stayed tight and dry. They made certain, though, that her floors and frames were solid, and that her planking was at least reasonable and fair.

So, it can work. The Carr's have made it work for 30 years. If you do a crappy job, you are risking the boat of course. If you do a good job, you could be giving her another 30 years. At the end of that, so what if you need to replace a few frames from the inside? Scarf in some planking the hard way? For 30 years of trouble free service, that's not a bad trade.

Also, there is a method which has been talked about to avoid the possibility of the planks affecting the veneers, whcih is to use a flexible adhesive for the base layer, like 5200, and epoxy for the rest. That way, with a high stretch modulus, you have a much lower chance of having cracking problems.

Of course, the BEST way to restore her is to do a proper job. I just think that I would rather do that job with epoxy if the alternative is turning her into rose garden mulch.

[ 10-24-2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[pipefitter]

What is wrong with rebuilding it the way it was built initially if it has lasted this long?It seems you are going to be there already anyways repairing frames and refastening.Seems it would be easier replacing planking or recaulking than it would to try to fair a wood hull down to thinner wood.Why not wet it again and see what is left of the seams?Do they sell 5200 by the bucket now?I cant even imagine what it would be like to veneer a hull this size twice atleast and then all that fairing work to end up with a lumpy boat just so you can say it used to be a genuine classic under all that.Just seems the satisfaction of replacing the bad stuff and having it look like it used to would be more rewarding.I like epoxy/glass on modern materials and it seems to go with that scenario.
I dont see why if one is willing to adapt an old method to new how it would be much less than just cold molding a whole new hull and adding the masts and hardware from the old.

I also can't imagine how meticulously the wood would have to be cleaned and stripped inside and out to have this stuff stick to it and then the wood under the frames is still going to be naked.Seems alot of work to just end up with a fibreglass boat. Wait until you have to sand/fair the hull, all the veneer,then do the same to the glass and epoxy coating, the whole time knowing that there still might be issues under it.Kind of like trusting a rebuilt engine to go 100k miles again with knurled valve guides and all the other bandaid fixes. Sounds expensive to me or that you could have bought one already restored correctly.

[TimothyB]

I'll try this again....

Cold molding veneers is not necesssarily lumpy. It is, in fact, fairly easy to fair down. This from a number of builders I've talked to about this method. It is one of the things which recommend it.

Second, many boats have been saved using the veneer method, including a 100+ year old Falmouth Quay punt going on 35+ years now. The reason you do it that way is because you don't want to have to reframe and replank the whole boat because of tired fasteners, cracked frames and loose fittings. You can be less than perfect (aesthetically) about your frame, floor and planking repairs while preparing the hull, and the veneering can be accomplished with relatively unskilled labor. Overall, it is cheaper, and can last a very long time. And it tightens up the hull tremendously, as well as keeping the wood drier, which helps to prevent rot. Your one time materials cost is lower doing it traditionally, but in veneering your ongoing and labor costs are a lot cheaper initially, and down the road for at least 35 years, as proven.

If your choice is (a) Veneer, getting a tight and well found boat you can use for 30 years, (b) don't sail it, spend 2 years trying to repair it, give up in frustration or (c) chainsaw the hulk because you can't afford to store it in the yard for another year I would go with (a).

Veneering works. We -know- it works. The Carr's and others have -proven- it works AND is cost effective. It is definitely not as salty or historically accurate, but if you want to sail your boat and veneering is how you can get her out there, why would you deprive yourself of that? Call them crazy but some people love wooden boats, but are afraid of a plank springing and losing the boat, which would be another reason to do it.

Bottom line is, I believe, whatever method works to get her on the water and in fine order is OK. Its your boat, your property, your investment. I would think a 35 year record of success, in the Arctic/Antarctic no less, would be enough to convince anyone.

[ 10-24-2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[Gary E]

I would think a 35 year record of success, in the Arctic/Antarctic no less, would be enough to convince anyone. That long ehh?... on how many boats?.. if it's so popular there should be a fleet of how many thousand or old saved boats by now?...Wasnt there a company calles SeaFlex or something that tried this?.. Are they still arround??

Dont get me wrong, I also think anything is possible, but where are the economics in this?..

Lets face it, wood boats are dead...and I mean more than just dead wood... insureability is next to imposible, glass, steel and alum has taken over as the material of choise.

Wonder if Wolftransportgroup who started this will be back to make his second post, or has been run off buy the armchair experts.

[TimothyB]

Originally posted by Gary E:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I would think a 35 year record of success, in the Arctic/Antarctic no less, would be enough to convince anyone. That long ehh?... on how many boats?.. if it's so popular there should be a fleet of how many thousand or old saved boats by now?...Wasnt there a company calles SeaFlex or something that tried this?.. Are they still arround??
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, I don't think its commercially viable, and since the market is rife with fiberglass boats there is no reason for the casual boater to even consider it. Too many cheap FG boats can be had. If I wanted to buy a boat for its resale value, I sure wouldn't pick a wooden boat except for a very, very few types/models.

The whole point is that if the boat needs a major rebuild to get her tight again and you don't have the 10s of thousands of dollars or hours to get her that way, the cold molded veneer approach is a way to get her tight, fit, and in fine service.

If she just needs a few planks, hey .. you would be stupid to do it. But if she is 20k of work away from being truly fit, and you can't keep the water out of her without replacing half her frames and planks, cold molding might save her.

If you're a boatbuilder for REAL, and you know how to spile plank, cut deadwood, etc etc, then you would naturally only do this traditionally. For a Joe like me, though, who understands the theory but has little practice, cold molding has a lot of appeal for getting an older boat on the water again.

[Jagermeister]

I don't see how two 1/4" layers makes a cold molded hull. It seems that a couple of thin layers over planks sounds more like a strip built boat. What is the longevity of large strip-built boats? Of course, remember that in a stripper, the strips are edge glued or fastened before the exterior skin is applied, and that wouldn't be true in this case.

Of course, the hull could be reefed, and then splined or epoxy-rope caulked, and then faired, and then veneered, but at that point you'd have a heavy hull, with poorly fastened frames (because we wanted to save the cost and effort of reframing or refastening, remember), that can let water in but not out. And, no way of upkeep or repair.

About five of us spent almost a whole day reefing some silicon snot out of four sixteen-foot long seams. The reefing iron kept wanted to take an excursion into the wood, since the caulk was harder than the wood. It was an awful mess to get out. I'd hate to try to remove that crud from an entire boat.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

[ 10-24-2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

[pipefitter]

"She has been on the high and dry for almost 2 years, but is quite sound.(although she is quite dry)After I plan to repair some broken ribs and replace planks and refasten hull"

I am definitely no expert but by his post it seemed he would already be well on his way to repairing the boat. Then to have to build another hull around it yet again? I was more just asking why someone would want to go to all this trouble for an old boat.

If one wants to bad enough and is already knowing they can replace broken frames and planks,they can repair the boat as intended. This just rings like repairing an antique house and then covering it with vinyl siding so you dont have to worry about taking care of the exterior.Sure seems like it would take an awful lot of epoxy and time.After building my small boat,the wood work went fast and the epoxy and the fairing and the finish work took longer than the build.Just the cost of the abrasives alone for a job that size would scare me.
Would any expert that repaired this boat in that way, guarantee it for 35 years?

[Bob Smalser]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Except where they sell rose-colored snake oil. ;) Some of the Rot Doctor's claims also come to mind.

For this to work, the applications of veneer, fabric and epoxy need to overcome and cancel out the forces of seasonal plank movement ala a sheet of plywood. That's certainly doable, but just how great are those forces in your solid planking and what will it take to permanently overcome them? Your guess is as good as mine....and that's what most do...they guess based on a couple decades of limited previous experience. A cumulative guess. A crapshoot.

Let's say your guess is 3 layers of veneer covered by fabric and epoxy. To get it to stick properly, you wood every square millimeter of your hull...reef, scrape-to-clean-wood and epoxy wedge every seam....and fair the results in prep for veneering.

I'd rather replace planks, frames, floors and caulk than deal with all that goo, thanks. And I'd rather have my kids dismantle the boat again some day in the future for further repair with a screwdriver instead of a Sawzall.

Not to mention that I don't really want fabric and goo holding my old hull together instead of the framing like a thousand or so years of cumulative experience dictates. If I've a problem with my keelbolts, my garboards will shrink and I'll know it long before a light grounding rips my backbone out.

[ 10-25-2005, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[formerlyknownasprince]

Well said Bob.

How many boats come to a premature end by people seeking miracles? Geez - its lasted about three times what most glass boats will - and is repairable. So why remove its repairability?

Ian

[Andrew S/Y Rocquette]

My tuppence worth: I have had ROCQUETTE veneered with three thin (2x diagonal, 1x fore and aft) veneers, BUT as part of the decision to do so the following factors in favour were considered (without which we probably would not have veneered her - and we also consulted her original designer):

She is double-carvel planked. Both layers are fully resourcinol-glued to each other (i.e. face and edge glued), so she is effectively already cold-moulded. Both layers are thin - less than 1/2 an inch, giving a total hull thickness of just under an inch.

If we had a single planked hull we would most likely not have done this, or the thickness of the veneers would have to be hugely increased to cover the strains others have mentioned.

We did not plane back her surface 1st, as the increase in displacement from three layers of 1.7 mm veneer are negligible (and is actually offset by the increase in "volume" as the hull skin is pushed out!), and we also had a secondary aim of increasing the skin thickness.

Fundamentally, ROCQUETTE's planking was largely sound but tired. Re-planking would have majorly altered her interior appearance as large elements of the inside hull are varnished and not lined. This way we've retained over 85% of the hull structure, but added to it in such a way as sympathetically as possible, to beef her up and revitalise her for another generation.

As I said, not sure I'd do it with a traditional carvel hull though...

Here's ROCQUETTE's Webpage (http://www.yacht.ro/frame.php?lang=en&linc=race) for pictures.

Regards

Andrew

[Andrew S/Y Rocquette]

oops - double post, Apologies.

[ 10-25-2005, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Andrew S/Y Rocquette ]

[werner]

if you own a wooden boat with some historical value you should restore it with the methods used to build it in fact you also have bought a certain responsability that comes with it "for free?".
Some of these boats will live longer than their present owner.If you restore a boat in a way that it will make future owners impossible to undo your "repairs" you are not showing much respect for history nor future ; or for that matter you should ask yourself :why have I bought a "classic" in the first place ? Or will the next owner curse me every time he tries to repair the boat?
You should ask yourself :how comes this boat has survived?
did they us epoxy or sanitred 70 years ago?
I can tell you having a classic of almost 100 years old were some fools smeared epoxy all over isn't funny.Just getting a board out of a carvel build hull is more like carving plastified wood for a week than loosen some fastenings in a few hours.
For example I know of a carvel build sailboat iroko planks in perfect state; but the new owner has glassed and epoxied her inside out because he didn't like the possibility of a wooden boat leaking!A typical case of" epoxy trade victim".
But ofcourse there are classic boats that are just to far gone and repairing these would be more like making a copy than restoring.For these anything goes, it becomes a matter of keeping her afloat instead of keeping it original.
If you can get the structure sound again then to use other than the original way to get her watertight seems like there still is something wrong (with the boat i mean).
In my opinion whatever you do make sure it can be undone (later).

[TimothyB]

Guys, I agree with you. I think that repairing a boat the traditional way is more sound, and repairable, and has the potential to be longer lasting. I never said that wasn't the case.

What I am trying to get across is that these techniques have been used in many boats to firm up a hull that would otherwise need major work to get her tight and 100% again. These techniques are proven, and are even approved, if done correctly, by the USCG.

Nothing is foolproof! Not even traditional repairs. I realize people here tend to be against epoxy repairs of this kind for many and sundry personal and practical reasons. And if the repair is not done correctly, you could have a lot of trouble on your hands.. but then that goes for traditional repairs as well.

The fact that at least one (and in fact many more) very old wooden boat has been kept on the water for more than 30 years by one of these techniques is enough of a recommendation to me that it is possible to not only do this repair right, but to have it be reasonably lasting. It can even be possible for people without advanced woodworking skills to accomplish them, which is a big point in favor of them since labor costs in a traditional repair of any significance will be very high. The second point in favor is the absolute watertightness of the methods. The third is the stiffness gain, without repurcussions to the boats structure (again, if done correctly).

And the fourth is that this sort of repair, in a number of cases, was the only thing between a beautiful old boat and the chainsaw. And as I've said before, I'd rather have such a boat on the water another 30 or 50 years (who knows how much longer?) than have her end up on the burn pile.

As far as keelbolts are concerned, it is common practice in England (so I've been told.. please correct me if this isn't true) to replace them every 10 years. Personally, I would replace 1/4 of my keel bolts every 5 years as a matter of course, and the first/last one every 5 years period. It shouldn't be hard to locate materials for 5 or 7 keelbolts every 5 years.

So, if you do a study of the costs, your personal desires (having the boat on the water sooner), and the general condition of the boat and it turns out that this sort of repair will keep/get her floating, whereas traditional methods are out of your reach, there really isn't any practical reason not to do it. There are aesthetic, artistic, possibly resale, personal and other reasons.. but not practical ones given the objective of getting her on the water for a couple of decades of use.

Once again, the Curlew is a 100+ year old Falmouth Quay Punt that was veneered in 1968, and is still going strong after cruising the Arctic and Antarctic. The Carr's have recieved numerous medals and accolades on the strength of their adventures in Curlew, without an engine or electricity the whole time. So you tell me if it was effective or not, given that fact.

[ 10-25-2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

[Bob Cleek]

I have to chuckle at anyone's reliance on what the Rot Doctor has to say. I consider one of the more satisfying aspects of this whole wooden boat game the research and learning that goes into discovering the old tried and true ways things were done by the master mechanics of old. On the other hand, make no mistake about it, I check out every new product, material and technique that comes along because there are improvements developing continually, just as they have for the last couple of thousand years.

That said, I frankly think the Rot Doctor is a fraud. What the Rot Doctor has done is only to repackage other manufacturer's products and then advertise them with exaggerated claims, luring the unsuspecting consumer to pay MORE for a product that was never designed to do what the Rot Doctor claims it will.

CPES, manufactured by Smith and Co., is a good case in point. This product, a penetrating epoxy sealer designed for use initially in the construction industry to seal glue-lam beams, IIRC, was found to have sound application in the wooden boat industry. Mr. Smith, its developer, has an interest in wooden boats and followed up with a lot of scientific testing and developed a line of marine related products. Smith's products are, as far as I know, primarily sold to industrial customers, with a small retail business at the factory and some products available from marine catalogs.

Now, the "Rot Doctor" comes along and buys industrial sized lots of CPES sealer, repackages it under his "Rot Doctor" label and starts advertising that all you need to do is slop it on a hunk of punky rotten wood and, voila!, good as new plastic wood! What a load of crap! I've read an awful lot of Smith's product literature and spoken with Steve Smith a time or three. I've never heard such a claim made for Smith's CPES. No doubt, Smith would have sold a lot more CPES if he had made the same claims the Rot Doctor does, but he's an honest man.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by werner:
if you own a wooden boat with some historical value&hellip;you also have bought a certain responsability that comes with it "for free?".

&hellip;If you restore a boat in a way that it will make future owners impossible to undo your "repairs" you are not showing much respect for history nor future&hellip;

In my opinion whatever you do make sure it can be undone (later).The primary Rules for the museum-quality restoration of valuable antiques, such as Stradivarii fiddles or Newport (Goddard/Townsend) furniture, are:

1. Repairs must be consonant with the style/period of the piece.

2. Repairs must be identifiable both with respect to the repair and with respect to the workman and date, so as to maintain the provenance of the piece.

4. Most importantly, repairs must be able to be undone/removed.

[Al Owen]

I feel rather humble to make any reply to what Mr. Cleek had to say above. However, When I called SMITH Co. yesterday to buy C.P.E.S. for my new boat build, I was refered to the Rot Doctor's web-site and told that the information on that web-site was more up to date than the information on there own web-site. Does that mean they (SMITH) endorses the ROT DOC? Heck if I know?

[guillemot]

I have limited experience as a boat builder, but I am with the traditional camp on this. Just as I would not put a polyurethane finish on an antique shaker table to make it more durable so I wouldn't have to use coasters under drinks, I wouldn't rush to sheath a classic wooden boat in modern materials. A classic boat has aesthetic value as an authentic representative of its type in its original (as designed) condition. This is separate from its monetary value. If you fundamentally change the object, it is no longer authentic and thus has vastly reduced aesthetic/historical value.

I don't usually chime in on these things, but I feel strongly that those few things in the world that are rare and fine should be cared for and preserved for future generations.

Also, don't let the tone of this opinionated crowd drive you off. They can be pretty gruff. Cleek is always very direct, but if you read through his long history of posts on this and other forums, you'll find that his opinion is based on experience, as are the opinions of many others here. I'd listen to what he and the other experienced woodworkers and boatbuilders have to say. They can help you make this project a success.

That's my opinion. Best wishes in whatever route you choose to go. It's your boat.

Jeff

[ 10-25-2005, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: guillemot ]

[DLW]

this is a great post and I find it very informative. Although my experiances are extremely limited both negative and positive for the modern materials. There seems to be in my experiances the right time and right place for the fiberglass or other application to a wooden boat in order to make it a better boat. We fiberglassed with west system the deck of out Luders 24 because of the yearly maintence it required was just wearing on my dad and I. Having to sand down and repaint a 38 foot deck is no fun. Needless to say the deck now acts as a fiberglass boats deck but still looks as if it were wood, and no one would be the wiser unless they were told it was glassed.