wheels
-
Content Count
13,529 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
102
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by wheels
-
-
Initially Durapox was never meant for the Marine Market here in NZ and is why we don't see it well promoted for such here. It was used mainly in the Automotive and Industrial markets. Some of you that have a bit of Car paint background will know the name 2K, which is the primer.
In fact Resene actually advertised it to the Automotive Industry as having been used on the AV boats. Yet as far as I know, it was never promoted as such in the Marine industry. Go figure.
Maybe Resin view it as they already have enough products in the Marine industry, why complicate it more.
Oz promote it heavily for Marine use. -
14 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:4 hours ago, wheels said:
wharehouse
Is it in Whanganui, or Whangarei?
I have a feeling that is a comment that has sailed right over my head
But in case not, the original Wharehouse was in Auckland. -
2 hours ago, Psyche said:
Hempel, despite being here for 15 plus years and being a big player in Europe (with excellent paint) they are still a minor player in the retail market, same with Jotun. Boaties are very conservative, which makes sense when the biggest cost component for a paintjob is haulout and labour. International for example is a good product, is it the best?
The problem Hempel had in NZ originally was that the Owner was mostly interested in Commercial Shipping. He was originally one of the big cheeses of Nalder and Biddle of Nelson. The NZ operation did do retail, but not a lot more than someone walking in off the street into the front of their Wharehouse. Possibly the biggest advertising they got was me talking about the product.
Now that Hempels own the wharehouse, I can only assume the product range will be increasing and maybe advertising.
Psyche is correct that International and Altec for that matter are recognised because they both have had long term history and enormous money put into promoting both brands. There are many other products out there that are as good, but not well known due to lack of promotion.
Brand recognition is likely the biggest factor in getting product sales. But if you go into a shop and the product is not on the shelf, it won't get sold. So for the likes of Jotun, it's a good product, but when do you ever see it?
In the early days, both Epiglass and Altex had an aggressive Retail attitude. For a retailer, it was very hard to stock multiple products names. You were forced by the companies to stock one or the other. They gave wonderful enticements like display stands, paying for huge advertising billboards both inside and outside the shop, which made the shop look good as well. The more loyal the retailer was to the brand, often the better the discounting or some other incentive. Often there would be a sole retail distributor per area as well. The Supplier would not sell to a competing retailer.
Then NZ retail laws began changing. First change was if a retailer wanted to buy a product, the company had to supply. Of course, initially there were supply cost differences between competitor and original retailer. But eventually that changed as well. Especially when some retailers came together to gain better purchasing power. Or a retailer in one part of the Country would buy a shop in another part of the Country and they had the power of sales volume. Or they had that product in the one town and could now stock it in the other, where that brand may already have a prefered retailer.
Over the years, everything has changed. I am not at all sure it has been for the better. -
There was another listed in TM recently. Just one pic of the outside and that looked bad enough. Asking price was $5K. I jokingly sent the Pic to a mate and asked if he thought that was a fair price, or if I should ask the lister for more to take it to the dump.
There are still a few out there that think their Boats are worth way more than they are ever going to get for them. -
Thats a good article. But I need to correct one error. 5 Boaties sitting around discussing the subject will result in 10 answers, not 6.
The overall article highlights the one common point. There is no one simple answer and for every attempt to reduce Hull resistance through the water, there is a whole new set of Physical laws that fight against you.
There is one important point that always needs to be kept in mind. Friction and Resistance to movement is as much your friend as is your enemy. If you have no friction/resistance, you will never sail into the wind at all, nor even sail beam on and you will only ever go as fast down wind as the wind itself. So there needs to be some form of resistance so as things like Hull shape, Rudder shape, Keel shape/size and length, all work in combination, so as to create a forward movement when another force is applied (ie wind in sails). With no friction and resistance, water would simply flow around rather than over a surface. Remember that all the shapes of a Hull are such to create lift through the water.
Said another way to make it easier to understand, a Car tire will give you greater grip the wider it is. But the friction ends up increasing as well, so it's harder to roll on the road and you use more fuel. If you decide to reduce that friction to save fuel, lets say you spray oil on the surface of the tire as you travel, you end up no longer staying on the road. You cannot turn corners, you cannot maintain a straight line and you cannot accelerate etc.
-
Using different words to say the same as been said, "Ain't no such thing as a cheap yacht".
Boats cost you twice. As an example, lets say it was $100K to build. Over it's lifetime, it is going to one day cost you that $100K again. You can chip away at it year by year with maintenance, or do nothing and eventually have it get to the point were it is gong to cost you $100K to get it back to being a usable boat.-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
Where is this well tested proof that these units don't work?
Or is this just your opinion based on personal or anecdotal experience?
The evidence available seems to be quite the opposite to your assertion that the technology doesn't work.
Here is a third piece of evidence.
So either you did not read that paper, or you do not understand it (sorry I don't intend that to come across harshly). If you read it again, and you will see that it is exactly as I stated above and will go over again here.
You will also see that this is not about an product fitted to a Hull somewhere and how well it works. This was nothing more than a lab test carried out by some Uni guys. Also they were using a range of frequencies and a very small test area. Basically no more than the surface of the transducer. I would expect that surface of the transducer.likely coupled to a plate, would be kept clean.
At frequencies as low as 17Khz to 19Khz, the power they used woudl be easily audible to most people. If these were fitted on multiple hulls in a marina, the sond would be very noticible. Young Children would likely be screaming and have their hands over their ears. It would be one way of getting rid of that Seal from the Marina.
Which brings me to a great example as proof ultrasound does not work. Ever seen how dirty the transducer face on the Sounder gets?? If this worked, the face would remain clean as a wistle. Those things are punching down in the vacinity of 600W for a small one and 1.5Kw for the larger ones and the commercial things are in the 10's of Kw's and the commerical transducers don't keep clean either. Now mind you, we are talking about extremely high frequencies here. But the surface of the transducer is subject to harmonics that create clicks that are in fact audible. They are also capable of cracking the tranducer face if operated out of the Water. You should NEVER operate a sounder transducer out of water by the way, because of that.
Another great test is that for any Hull using these things, if it were working, then every point on the Hull where a transducer was fitted (I am assuming it's firing through the Hull) there would be a localised patch of extremely clean hull progressively getting dirtier as you move out and away from the Transducers mounting position. Yet that does not occur.
So as shown in that article you need extremely high power and specialized equipment and that is waaaay outside what these little consumer devices are capable of. I did not say ultra sound does not work. I did say those little consumer devices sold for our Boats do not.
As I also said, they are used commercially in Cooling plants. The power required is huge. So huge, it would be dangerous to get into a tank with one operating. Even though frequencies above 20Khz are above our hearing range, you can still have hearing damage from these intense sound energies. Early on in my carreer, I made a very silly mistake of putting a transducer up to my ear. It was 30Khz. Waaaay above our hearing range. Yet I was suddenly hit with intense ear pain, deafness and ringing in that ear. Thankfully the deafness was short term. But I also only held it up to my ear for a fraction of a second.
As I said, I have a lot of professional experience in this field. I know how it works, I know it's limitations, I have studied it in great depth. I have used it in many applications. I would consider myself well trained, but not to the extent of a degree in it, as my main carreer was in audible sound. Of which I am highly qualified.
As I also said, Fullers are just one that tried a proper commercial Marine unit and it did not work for them and they had it removed again. There are many instances of people trying them and finding they do not work. Just ask yourselves why they are not found everywhere. If they worked as well as AF coatings, they would be reccomended by everyone. They have been available for, at a guess, some 30+ years.16 hours ago, AlastairW said:With all due respect, I'd suggest reading Eric's articles that were referred to earlier. The rationale behind utrasound as used on small boats isn't to try to kill existing organisms with high power sound (which you can do - I know a fair bit about that), instead, the aim is to stop the establishment of organisms on the hull while they are still at the immature stage. That can be done quite successfully using a low powered unit. Different organisms are susceptible to different frequencies, so you need to deliver a swept frequency pulse. You also need to have an adequate number of transducers, strategically positioned. Organisms won't establish on a surface which is uncomfortable to them.
And also with all due respect, there has been no actual testing to find if that is true or not. There is no evidence as to whether an organism is affected by these ultrasound frequencies. It has always been suggested, but no one has any scientific proof, apart from situaions like that paper above states. You can also include those devices you fit in the wall socket at home to scare away Mice and some even suggest Cockroaches. They do not work. Some even claim they Ultrasound transmits back through the House wiring and radiates out everywhere. Also tested and proven false. Yet they still sell the things. But that is aside from the discussion here.
As I said above, the ultimate test is that the Hull would be clean at the mounting point of each transducer and would slowly get dirty as you move away from the area. So you would have these circular patches everywhere. Ultrasound does well at transmitting directionaly. It has poor ability at transmitting along and then radiating out. So the Hull itself does not resonate at that high frequency. It attentuates quickly in the material. By how much depends on the Tensile strength of the steel. Higher tensiles will tend to "ring" easier.
I've said enough. If you think it works for you, then that's awesome. More power to you as they say
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CarpeDiem said:
NZ has some pretty strict laws that make selling products that have been 'well tested and proven not to work" to be very illegal.
You obviously don't watch the Infomercials on TV in the late night and early mornings then. Wow there are some wild claims in those shows.
I have a major background in Sound, mostly audible sound, but also Ultra Sound. When this idea first hit the market, I had mentioned my concerns here on Crew and we had a big discuss about it.
Fullers Ferries tried large units on the Ferrys a few years back now. They failed to do anything measurable in keeping the Hulls clean and they had them removed. We discussed the subject again then.
The idea of using Ultra sound was first developed for large water containment tanks for industrial cooling units. It was supposed to stop Algae forming. These units were large powerful devices and to a point, did work. However, they were extremely directional as far as the area's kept clean. Which is how Ultra sound works. It is very directional. Any shading by any object in the water would then coincide with algae growth on the other side of the object. So it was obvious it has some kind of ability.
However, these Units were producing Kilowatts of ultrasound energy to do the job. You would not want to get into the water with them on. That is why we don't see them in Swimming pools. To privide that kind of energy takes a lot of Electrical power. No problem when you have a Buildings electrical system to couple to. But the things found on Boats are teeny tiny things, simply because they would flatten the Battery far too fast otherwise. They are far too small to do anything. This power problem was the very first thing that got my attention. I knew it simply was not possible to do as claimed.
The other concern I had, it means the Hull is blasting high frequency sound into the Water where animals that actually use ultra sound live. Think of Dolphins and Whales etc. Plus we have no understanding of just what affect it may have on any kind if fish life that has the ability to sense Sound. Many fish do sense sound.
As far as Plant growth goes, it won't care how loud the sound is, till the point where it is powerful enough to actually be damaged. For shellfish, I have no idea if they can sense sound and I doubt anyone has tested that. Anyway, from the info originaly pushed to promote these devices, the idea is that the Ultrasound is supposed to disrupt the Plant in such a way as it cannot grow and dies. That takes a serious amount of sound power to do. For Shelfish, the High frequency vibration might perhaps annoy them, perhaps but I doubt it. High frequency as far as ultra sound goes, cannot be felt untill the energy is at scary levels and it disrupts life via pain, heat and eventually if powerful enough, being pulled apart via cavitation. So the idea a Shellfish is kept up late at night from the loud party sound of the ugly gang in the apartment above and eventually leaves the neighborhood is about as far fetched as me just describing the shellfish being kept up late at night by the ugly gang in the apartment above and eventualy leaving the neighborhood.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, AlastairW said:
We haven't had an issue with those for a couple of years now, we use an ultrasound unit to manage those.
It's likely the coating keeping you clear of Barnacles. The Ultra sound devices are a total waste of time. They don't work and well tested and proven that they don't work.
So who makes Seaspeed? Sounds interesting. I think over the next few years, these release type AF products are going to be like new Battery technology. Rapid intro's on to the market and each with a new idea in their coatings technology and for us, very difficult to keep up with developments.
The reason why Hemples did not have a consumer Silicon product was due to the guy (a good friend of mine) originally importing Hemples. He is also a keen and highly experienced Boat owner. He was only interested in the Hemples product for commercial reasons, due to the difficulty in "Pleasing" the Consumer boat world in relation to AF's. He told me the most common arguments in the Boat coatings world was in relation to AF's and he just wasn't interested in going there with such a new technology and so radically different to anything else around. Hemples was the first to come up with Silicon based AF by the way.
His view was to keep to the usual tried and true products that they could easily argue with tried and true, "You must have done something wrong" replies.
Hemples approached him and said they wanted to buy him out and expand the business in NZ.
When we used to haul out in Havelock, we would only have a slime on the Hull die to the frsh water running through the Marina. Yet the difference in speed between dirty and newly coated Hull was 1.5Kts at same cruising Revs. We normally cruised at 6.5kts which meant around 8-10ltrs per hr with the big 6.
The worst we ever had was when the boat was moored over the Picto side and both Hull and Prop was filty with weed and shell fish growth. We could only get 3kts from her and I had to have two attempts at getting around the Top, as the Tide turned before rounding into Pelorus and we started gong backwards. We had to run back to Port Gore for the night and have another shot the next morning. -
I have discussed the Hemples silicon based AF in the past, but a bit too early for most, as it was once only available for Commercial applications here in NZ. As in, it was only imported in 44Gal drums and went direct to shipyards. It's great to see that has changed and is now available to the average boater.
As said above, it does not have Biocides in it. But the development came about for two reasons. Firstly for commercial, TBT was being phased out. Secondly, the Copper based AF's have had many of their ingrediants phased out from use and the performance of Copper Based is becoming poor. Thirdly, People are becoming much more aware of what we are putting into our environment these days. So for any Company that advertises they have a safer alternative, then they obviously will gain an edge in market share with their product.
As also said above, the slippery coatings DO NOT stop growth. But then, non of the Copper based Coating were doing that anyway. The only product that ever maintained a completely clean surface was the very expensive self eroding coatings that contain Hydrogen Peroxide. But they only last 12months.
The only down side of the Silicon coatings is that they do need a resonably fast hull for self cleaning. I think minimum was 12kts. That's is far above most Hulls. But they are easy to brush down.
The coating should last 5yrs because that is what they were designed for on Commerical Vessels. Commercial Vessels have to go through Survey every 5yrs. A Commerical owner does not want to have to haul out any sooner due to cost. On a Sailing Hull, there should be no reason what you cannot get 5yrs. If you were one that used the very first kind of non commercial products on the market, then you might not get 5yrs. Don't let that put you off on what is now available. The performance is improving all the time. After all, they are a very new and still developing product.
These products work in a similar way to Prop speed etc. They are still only available for commercial application due to 2 reasons. The product is sprayed on with a commercial pressure sprayer. Because it is silicon, that pressure applicator needs to be used for that product only. Anyone that uses these silicon products and then tries to spray a normal Paint coating on a Boat is going to be in for a big surprise. No matter how well they cleaned the equipment. The same goes for keeping any possible overspray from floating arund in the air. A microscopic spec of silicon on another surface is a nightmare when it comes to painting. Even the materials and equipment used on preparation of the Hull before recoat needs to be kept separate from normal paint handling areas. Or at least, it is wise to anyway.
The only downside I see to it is the cost. It might be OK when viewed over 5yrs, but it's a big chunk to have to find every 5yrs. -
Only a few weeks back I was talking about this Boat.
(I have never posted a link to a FB page before. I hope people can open it. If not, can someone step in and make any changes required to allow that to happen)
https://www.facebook.com/commerce/listing/3230743333911192/?media_id=1&ref=share_attachment-
1
-
-
You would need to ask to varify Headroom of all these. But i am pretty sure they are decent from memory. But I am only 5'8", so everything seems roomy in my memory.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/motors/boats-marine/yachts/keeler/listing/3558928522?bof=xcto6eba
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/motors/boats-marine/yachts/keeler/listing/3569741555?bof=xcto6eba
How " modern" do you want? These oldies have a lot of room, but won't be as fast.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/motors/boats-marine/yachts/keeler/listing/3560257849?bof=xcto6eba
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/motors/boats-marine/yachts/search?bof=xcto6eba&sort_order=motorslatestlistings&length_min=8&price_max=40000&length_max=14&page=2
-
21 hours ago, waikiore said:
And not to mention the 500 tonnes of coal a week coming through Auckland port to be burnt at MereMere to make our clean electricity and power these ludicrously expensive 'clean' ferrys. But hey lets not get the facts in the way of a nice story. Fullers are clever, building a hybrid that will run to Waiheke or wherever that can take the inevitable knocks from wharves etc, whilst waiting to see if the full leccy ones work before offering to run them for AT.
I believe that has come to an end. Or was supposed to have.
-
22 hours ago, Kevin McCready said:
Elephant in the room is still Tiwai. https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/29-11-2019/a-modest-proposal-for-the-future-of-tiwai-point
Thats an old story now. The current one is that Tiwai will go and a Data centre is to be built and fed the power Tiwai takes. And yes, large Data Centres can take that kind of power. Google is using the same amount of energy as San Francisco uses.
-
On 26/04/2022 at 6:15 PM, harrytom said:
Total waste of money,40kms distance.
Was it 2000 Tonne of Co2 they reported they would save per yr? $27mill for 2000t is a lot per tonne. I don't get how they say it will save the Council $200mill/yr. Or did they mean, "earn" the council.
Which is one of my beefs, country wide councils should not be in opposition/competition to local businesses. But I won't go down that track further as I understand it is against the rules.
Or is my entire post outside the rules? Happy if Admin wish to delete it. -
On 26/04/2022 at 6:14 PM, aardvarkash10 said:
More realistic than the ground effect flying boats that were touted last week as "operational as early as 2025".
When I saw that news item, I was thinking about the kaos that would be out there on the Gulf, when we have boaties not obeying the Nav laws now, imagine a thing traveling at multi hundreds of Kph zipping around. So in saying that, obviously such a thing being allowed to go that fast in Harbor limits will be out of the question. Travel between say Wellington and Lyttelton might be worth it, but Strait conditions is going to limit entry/exit. Sounds interesting and would be exciting to take, but it's going to need to be competative.
-
22 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
The other end will be similar in technique, so the load is completely off the cover - all through the core.
Arr OK, I was not sure how your line was going to be used.
I was considering a line going around a winch, the cover ends up taking a lot of the drag and will move along the core. Even drag through sets of pulleys will do it.
If weight is an issue, often the cover is removed or you can of course buy just the core alone. CRA sell a core only and they coat it to protect it from UV. Cheaper than buying a core and cover and then discarding the cover. They can also custom splice it to suit your needs.-
1
-
-
OK, so aside from a possible reason other than ease of making the spice, be aware that the inner core is poor in regards to UV exposure. The last photo just above looks like it has been coated and that will give protection.
The other possible issue is that the outer cover can slip over the core and the strain will come soley on the stitch. Nornally for full protection, we would also splice the outer cover along with the core. That way the line works in the way in which it was made.
I see that the video makers also do a cover to cover splice and hence I was wondering why the Core only splice. -
I have been watching with interest the new Solid State Battery technology that Toyota has just produced. The Solid State battery is said to be able to accept a full charge in just 15mins, endure over 5000cycles BEFORE any significant drop in charge capacity, last for 30yrs in Vehicle applications, are lighter in weight and have greater capacity per/Kg. On top of all that, safer as they cannot catch fire and the Materials used and manufacturing ease will eventually make them much cheaper and dramatically bring down the cost of a Vehicle.
However, this is that part I was a little shocked about. Going back a step first, there are many new technologies being reported. But in essence, they are still on a lab bench under development. Which annoys me greatly when a News Headline comes out reporting a break through and new Technology and it's going to revolutionise the World and blah blah blah, only to find that often the new battery is still on a Lab bench somewhere as a concept, but no one has actually produced a marketable design yet.
Well Toyota's news was a little different. They actually have a working battery in a Vehicle that is currently under test conditions, going around and around a track. It thought great, in a year or a bit more we should be seeing these in Vehicles and I am sure someone will start producing them in packs that can replace the Batteries we have in Boats and RV's. But then I was heard the bad news part. They plan to test this for 10yrs. WHAT??? 10yrs... seriously??? 10yrs before we see this in the market place? Is that how long many of these companies spend once they take a consept on the Lab bench, get it into a usable formate and create one and then it's 10yrs of testing before they start producing????
No wonder we don't see the new technologies come to market.
Toyota are about to start building a Facility to produce these Batteries. It is going to cost an estimated $13billion(I assume that is US dollars). That money is going to come from sales profits of the EV Vehicles they are producing now. So it's still someway off before they start on that as well.
Slightly aside from this story, Toyota is heading into the EV market boots and all and have 70 different models in production to be released between the new Sales Season and 2025. There are rumours they have a new EV that is going to turn heads in many ways. One being price. The reports are that they will have an EV that will retail for $19995. I assume that is also US dollars. But it could also be Ozy Dollars, because that is the market it is heading to apparently.-
1
-
1
-
-
Is there a reason why the outer braid is removed?
-
When you say overhaul, are you meaning the box was overhauled?
Things to check.
1: Is the oil level correct? This is most important. Many Marine boxes can overheat and then slip if the Oil level is even only a little bit too much over the full mark on the stick. If it has been topped up, that can be a common issue
2: If Oil is original, is it clean? You do not want to see any milkyness in it, as that will be a sign of water. You do not want to see any shimmering metal in it or brown or black bits from the friction material. It needs to be clean and it's smell should not have any burnt wiff to it.
3: If oil topped up or replaced, was correct oil type and viscosity used. Yours should be ATF Dexron II-D.
Oil should be changed every 12months. But my personal view is that it depends on engine hrs and if the Oil remains clean, I see no real need. But if oil is looking a bit off, then it should be replaced.
4: Check to ensure the Gear shift linkage is traveling the full distance of traverse. Wear in linkages could be causing it to travel only part way and not fully engaging.
I can't think of anything else you can check for. If it still slips, the only path is removal and take to an expert for rebuild.
If it has been rebuilt, there is a problem. These should not slip like that and continuation of such slippage will result in more damage to the Cones.
-
In case I am not getting my points across well (which can be the case with me) I am going to simply post a link to an article. It's not the one I was wanting, but it is pretty close to what I am trying to express. The discussion is a complex one and I can't provide all the relevant info in a few posts. So if anyone is interested in the topic, please read.
https://yachtsnet.co.uk/osmosis.htm
Aside from that, I will continue to search and see if I can find some kind of online article, if one exists, in reference to the article I read from the International/Epiglass fellow. By the way, I could be wrong, but the name David keeps popping into my head. No clue of last name. Thinking hard I have a feeling the article may have been in one of the Boating Magazines. -
19 hours ago, waikiore said:
Your history of Osmosis treatment is woefully full of gaps and misleading, Epiglass -and International were not involved other than saying grind out the blisters coat with Epoxy undercoat and antifoul . This advice came from England where they do not suffer anything like as bad as us and other tropical climes. This practice still continue today and does not stop Osmosis.
In NZ we led the world developing the planer and drying regimes followed by a carefully considered re lamination utilising Vinylester mixes. This system was developed by Mike Menzies in conjunction with Colin Palmer at Adhesive Technologies in the 80's. To this day it appears to be the only method that I have seen not fail.
Sorry mate, but I am absolutely correct on the epiglass guy and the information made available by them. I will try and see if I can find the info, but it may not be something that is to be found on line. I can assure you that I am not far off the mark with the info. I can also assure you that anyone that is still using the planning technique is either not up with the latest info and thus misleading boat owner, or does know and is simply ripping off customers. Because there is a lot of money to be made doing it.
Vinyl became available ruffly around 1980 by the way.
16 hours ago, Rats said:Mostly I agree, My understanding of the primary purpose of the tissue behind the Gel coat was to prevent "print" of the fiberglass substrate through the gel coat layer, print is where in a certain light you could see the pattern of the fiberglass mat used in the layup through the outer gel coat layer, although I agree it could also provide a barrier to the somewhat porous gel coat allowing moisture to wick into the substrate over time.
Yes correct that was one of the reasons.
-
OK I am guilty of making comments that were far too broad in explanation of a discussion that is quite complex.
Before I get into it, here are some usless information facts. Did you know Polyester was actually invented back in 1935. It's first use was for Radomes on Aircraft during the War.
The first FRP(fibre reinforced plastic) or also called GRP(glass reinforced plastic) boat was built in 1942.
The first GRP boat to be constructed in NZ was a small boat built by Arnold France in 1955. He continued to produce the designs making him the first NZ Fibreglass Boat Biulder, manufacturing under the name of France Craft.
A slight side track on another piece of interesting info. Bill Hamilton of Hamilton Jet fame, had been trying without success to biuld a jet boat. Bill Hamilton approached Arnold France with his idea and Arnold suggested to Bill the best kind of Hull design he should go for and handed Bill a pamphlet of a water jet called the Hanley Water Jet. Which was basically a Centrifugal pump on it's side with the outlet pointing backwards and the intake down in the water of course. Bill basically copied that design and put it in his very first boat powered by an old Ford 10 engine. While it worked, it performed rather poorly and so Bill continued to biuld and improve his design. But at the same time, Arnold also biult a Waterjet. And it is said that Arnold actually biult the first commercially viable water jet that looked pretty much the modern day water jet. I remember it well, because s a Kid, my Uncle bought one and fitted it to a boat he built. He had that boat for decades and I grew up from a little tot to well into my mid twenties spending all my summers on that boat.
Back on track again....It was Frank Simpson that turned the industry on it's head with the first full scale production of GRP boats under the name Fi-Glass. Fi-Glass had been established building things like Sinks etc from this new fandangled material called Fibreglass.
From the early 60's into the 70's, the small powered trailer boat market exploded in NZ.
In 1963, there was a guy by the name of Peter Morgan, at that time a student and Auckland University Engineering dept, who carried out the first lab tests ever on composite strengths. With the information he gained, he went on to design and biuld his own Boat, a 20ft Morgan Clipper, of Ceder strip and Epoxy composite.
I had a bit to do with a bloke by the name of Ivan Ingram of Reflex boats. Reflex started in the early 70's and in 87 teamed up with John Haines to build Haines Signature Boats in CHCH. I love those boats. I believe Haines has absorbed Reflex. I caught up with Ivan probably over 10yrs ago now and he had pretty much handed over the keys to the factory at that point. I think Haines are now fully Oz built, but I stand to be corrected on that.
Did you know that by mid 1970's, there were 30 Boat manufactureres in NZ and some 100 different Models.
There are three Basic Types of Resins. Polyester, Vinyl Ester and Epoxy. Within each of those three, there are variations as well. For example, Polyester has a backbone of Isopthalic, Orthopthalic, and Terepthalic Acid. The last one by the way, is what clear plastic bottles, like Coke Bottles, are made from. And can be spun into fibres to make Polyester yarn, which is where Polyester Ropes and materials come from.
Polyesters are the cheapest and most commonly used because they are cheap. However, Polyester also has several drawbacks. It does not adhere to anything other than itself very well. It is brittle and it has the lowest return of strenght of the three main resin groups. It is prone to Osmosis. I will discuss Osmosis later on. However, it is still used in Boat biulding, except today, most and I will repeat that "Most" boat biulders use it in conjunction with Vinyl Ester Resins. Often the first Resin laid down is Vinyl Ester to create a water proof barrier. Then the following layers and structural builds are often Polyester.
Vinyl Ester is pretty much impervious to water. It does NOT suffer from Osmosis. Yes you can get Blisters, but Osmosis is not the cause. Usually a poor layup has been the cause. Osmosis is a different beast in that the Water takes on an acidic composition and it slowly degrades and disolves the Resin.
Vinyl Ester is a totally different makeup of Resin. It is actually a combination of Epoxy, married to the Ester group to create a Resin that is kind of in between Epoxy and Polyester. As a result, it is more expensive than Polyester, cheaper than Epoxy. It performs better than Polyester in nearly all aspects, has a far greater adherence to other materials, although still does not come close to Epoxy. Both Poly and Vinyl hardens through a Catalytic reaction, using a Chlorine Peroxide catalyst, being Methyl Ethyl Ketone. Vinylester does not suffer from Osmosis. The reason for this is the way the Molecular chain closes during the Crosslinking stage. This crosslinking difference is also why Vinyl does not remain tacky in air like Polyester does. Basically the cross linking difference is what stops the reaction of water within a blister creating an acidic reaction with the ester groups. And thus Osmosis does not take place.
I won't go into Epoxy as we all know what that is.
It is true that the Polyesters of the 60's/70's are different to the formulations of today. But Polyester is still a far inferior Resin when it comes to Vinyl and Epoxy. Also, building a small Trailer type Powerboat is a lot different to building something large that is going to take on a pounding, or is large enough that it is going to be in the water full time. Simply, anyone building a large vessel, Sail or Power, that is full time in the water, still using Polyester Resin needs to seriously reconsider. Vinyl Ester is the far better way to go. Or at the very least as a water impervious barrier coat with Polyester overtop. Performance wise, Vinyl is supperior in strength, adhesion and water proofness.
A lot of work was done by one of the chemists of International Epiglass years back now, re Osmosis. It used to be a problem that brought fear to the hearts of Boat Owners. Yards were making enormous money from such repairs. It used to be recommended that the Gelcoat and first layer of glass was removed with a special planning tool and then washed and left to dry for months. Then the holes filled and a new layer of Epoxy/Glass applied.
Then someone came up with the idea that they could vacuum suck the water out by simply breaking the blister and then placing a vacuum bag over the hull and apply said vacuum for weeks till dry. Then Epoxy. Then it evolved to grind the blisters and wash and fill and Epoxy.
Then enter the International/Epiglass fellow and he turned the entire industry upside down. He found that all that was needed was to break the blister, give a wash to ensure all the holes were clean, let it dry and fill the voids with filler. Then fair and an Epoxy Barrier coat before the normal Antifoul procedure was carried out. No need to go through the expensive hard work that was once prescribed.
I can go on, but I imagine few are still with me down here at this point.
Why are we stuck with just a couple brands in NZ?
in TechTalk
Posted
Haha, I didn't click.
As some of my students used to say, the Wurry Furry (spelt phonetically) to be a play on the Maori pronounciation of it.