archbuilder
Vice Admiral
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 5,697
So I'll give my 2 cents worth.....
The answer is the same to this question as it is to the poly vs epoxy issue or the gel-coat vs marine paint vs automotive paint vs rustoleum conversations, whatever works best to fit your goals, project, how you use the boat and where you are, fresh water or seawater. Cost, time, and expectations all figure in there too, we all value them differently.
There is nothing wrong with a good grade of plywood or wood. It has to be carefully installed, and penetrations need to be carefully sealed. It is by far the cheapest, and materials are readily available most anywhere. Some grades, such as marine,maybe hard to find in your location, but a lot of people on here use lesser grades with great success. And I bet most manufacturers do as well. The down side is that it will evenetually rot, when that occurs is a function of how well it was installed and maintenance. Maintenance falls into two categories, storing the boat in a clean dry environment, and taking care anytime you put screws or bolts through the fiberglass into the wood. Once water gets in the rot starts. Well installed and maintained wood will last for years.
I'm supprised that you can still find the CCA (cromated copper arsenic) treated plywood. I figured the EPA eliminated it, they are very good at outlawing anything that actually works.....I thought you could only get CCA lumber in large members for direct burial and wharf applications. Bonding isn't an issue as long as it is dry and clean. The engineered wood columns in my barn are laminated CCA lumber, excellent product. I haven't seen or used it in a boat, but it sounds like a good step up from untreated wood.
I used seacast on Miss Morgan, and I am very happy with it. I don't plan on selling her, so long term, no maintenance was important to me. Its also solid as a rock, and I can drill holes into it without worrying about wet wood. ( I still take care to seal any penetrations)
I'm glad that Wood posted the link to Mick's thread, he did a lot better job of documenting it than I did.v (and he did great work in an old, cold barn in the middle of the Pennsylvania winter!) I installed my seacast a little bit before he started the rebuilding part of his build. He called me several times and ask me questions about the process and results. I thought he was going to go with wood because of the cost, but changed back to seacast. It was a really bad time in the economy and he called them up and got a good deal. Otherwise, I think he would have went the plywood route. I don't think those deals are around anymore, lol!
I still question the "cost" of seacast. Everyone looks at the plywood cost vs the seacast cost, raw material only. Which is a big number, but I didn't have to make any peanut butter for fillets or spend the time messing around with them. I layed up my "inner skin" (transom) on a table, cut it to shape (used a cardboard template), tabbed it in, and poured it full of seacast. I did that for both the stringer and the transom. The seacast essentially took the place of the peanut butter as well as the plywood. It flowed into every nook and cranny. I was worried about working time, but it was very forgiving even in the OK summer. Granted the raw material only cost isn't cheaper than wood, but it eliminates the peanut butter.....not sure what you guys spend on that. I'm sure the wood route is still cheaper when you look at the "whole product cost", but I bet the final numbers get a lot closer to each other.
Again, its just my preference, but its just a cleaner, simpler, more flexible process to me.
All that said, I have been back and forth on Fuggly. I started out with the idea of just doing her with wood, thinking I would eventually sell her anyhow. But the more time I spent doing demo and grinding, the more I thought "this sucks, I don't EVER want to do this again on this boat". Yes, I'm sure all you Tin guys will chime in, but the truth is demoing and grinding a glass boat flat out sucks!
I'm still up in the air on if I will keep the boat, we'll find out once she is on the water. But I have come to the conclusion she is going to be built with seacast. The deck is still going to be plywood....I haven't found a replacement for the deck that makes sense to me. But since the deck is the first thing you remove in a rebuilt, its also the easiest to remove and replace, which hopefully I never have to do....back to my wood instillation and maintenance theory.
I am planning on using the self leveling seacast on the bottoms of the sponsons and center pod to replace the 1/4" plywood. I'm pretty sure you can also use it to replace a deck, but it will run into some dollars. So I have ruled it out for this project, but maybe I will try it somewhere down the road.
In conclusion of my rambling, research the options, look at your situation and goals, then pick the route which works best for you!
The answer is the same to this question as it is to the poly vs epoxy issue or the gel-coat vs marine paint vs automotive paint vs rustoleum conversations, whatever works best to fit your goals, project, how you use the boat and where you are, fresh water or seawater. Cost, time, and expectations all figure in there too, we all value them differently.
There is nothing wrong with a good grade of plywood or wood. It has to be carefully installed, and penetrations need to be carefully sealed. It is by far the cheapest, and materials are readily available most anywhere. Some grades, such as marine,maybe hard to find in your location, but a lot of people on here use lesser grades with great success. And I bet most manufacturers do as well. The down side is that it will evenetually rot, when that occurs is a function of how well it was installed and maintenance. Maintenance falls into two categories, storing the boat in a clean dry environment, and taking care anytime you put screws or bolts through the fiberglass into the wood. Once water gets in the rot starts. Well installed and maintained wood will last for years.
I'm supprised that you can still find the CCA (cromated copper arsenic) treated plywood. I figured the EPA eliminated it, they are very good at outlawing anything that actually works.....I thought you could only get CCA lumber in large members for direct burial and wharf applications. Bonding isn't an issue as long as it is dry and clean. The engineered wood columns in my barn are laminated CCA lumber, excellent product. I haven't seen or used it in a boat, but it sounds like a good step up from untreated wood.
I used seacast on Miss Morgan, and I am very happy with it. I don't plan on selling her, so long term, no maintenance was important to me. Its also solid as a rock, and I can drill holes into it without worrying about wet wood. ( I still take care to seal any penetrations)
I'm glad that Wood posted the link to Mick's thread, he did a lot better job of documenting it than I did.v (and he did great work in an old, cold barn in the middle of the Pennsylvania winter!) I installed my seacast a little bit before he started the rebuilding part of his build. He called me several times and ask me questions about the process and results. I thought he was going to go with wood because of the cost, but changed back to seacast. It was a really bad time in the economy and he called them up and got a good deal. Otherwise, I think he would have went the plywood route. I don't think those deals are around anymore, lol!
I still question the "cost" of seacast. Everyone looks at the plywood cost vs the seacast cost, raw material only. Which is a big number, but I didn't have to make any peanut butter for fillets or spend the time messing around with them. I layed up my "inner skin" (transom) on a table, cut it to shape (used a cardboard template), tabbed it in, and poured it full of seacast. I did that for both the stringer and the transom. The seacast essentially took the place of the peanut butter as well as the plywood. It flowed into every nook and cranny. I was worried about working time, but it was very forgiving even in the OK summer. Granted the raw material only cost isn't cheaper than wood, but it eliminates the peanut butter.....not sure what you guys spend on that. I'm sure the wood route is still cheaper when you look at the "whole product cost", but I bet the final numbers get a lot closer to each other.
Again, its just my preference, but its just a cleaner, simpler, more flexible process to me.
All that said, I have been back and forth on Fuggly. I started out with the idea of just doing her with wood, thinking I would eventually sell her anyhow. But the more time I spent doing demo and grinding, the more I thought "this sucks, I don't EVER want to do this again on this boat". Yes, I'm sure all you Tin guys will chime in, but the truth is demoing and grinding a glass boat flat out sucks!
I'm still up in the air on if I will keep the boat, we'll find out once she is on the water. But I have come to the conclusion she is going to be built with seacast. The deck is still going to be plywood....I haven't found a replacement for the deck that makes sense to me. But since the deck is the first thing you remove in a rebuilt, its also the easiest to remove and replace, which hopefully I never have to do....back to my wood instillation and maintenance theory.
I am planning on using the self leveling seacast on the bottoms of the sponsons and center pod to replace the 1/4" plywood. I'm pretty sure you can also use it to replace a deck, but it will run into some dollars. So I have ruled it out for this project, but maybe I will try it somewhere down the road.
In conclusion of my rambling, research the options, look at your situation and goals, then pick the route which works best for you!
Last edited:
