1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Swamping is only one scenario where boats get into trouble. I'd highly recommend you rethink and investigate the foam issue further.

So what are your thoughts on the issue? I have searched on here quite a bit and keep running into a multitude of thoughts and opinions. Some don't seem to feel its needed as its really only required on boats under 20'. Some dont like it at all as they feel it trapps water. Some dont want the expense of replacing it so they use foam noodles or jugs etc.
Some dont use anything.

some think its necessary as it may keep you afloat if you are swamped or leave the plug out. Some like that it could add structural ridgity and sound dampening.

The only conclusing I can come to so far is that if I have the typical 2lb foam it is most likely not there for the structure as I dont think they made 2lb foam for adding any ridgity. I can see how it would provide sound dampening.

 

[GT1000000]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

My thoughts are...
Scattered most of the time...
As they relate to foam or no foam...however...
The cost is small compared to the extra measure of safety I feel it adds to my boat...
Then again, most of my running will be in canals and lakes, where the odd submerged dead tree log could easily rip a hole in my hull and without the foam, I probably would not make it back to shore...
I also feel that even though it is not a structural foam, like one of the denser ones, it does add a certain solidness to my hull that wasn't there before I added it...
In the end it is your decision whether or not to use it...like you said, it is a 23 foot boat and it is not considered a requirement by the Coast Guard, but then again, even in my 17 footer, since it is being built by a backyard boat builder, it is not required either...
The requirement is basically for boat manufacturers...
I don't know where you plan to boat, but in my neck of the woods, the deepest any water I will usually be in is about 15-20 feet...even in such shallow water, and with a life preserver on, I sure would like to have a small island to grab on to while I wait for help to arrive, plus there be a lot of gators in my waters...sure would hate to become gator bait...
Keep in mind that you do not need to add enough foam to float the entire boat, since a lot of the boat materials themselves float...just like a life preserver that provides about 30 lbs. of floatation will keep most of us above water even though we weigh much more than 30 lbs...
And like you also mentioned, there are air pockets, too...
If you could add enough foam to compensate for just the things that would sink like a rock, your boat could stay afloat for a very long period of time, maybe even long enough to salvage it and repair/reuse it...
OH yeah, the salvage part...do you have any idea what kind of costs are involved in retrieving a boat from the bottom...You know that if it sinks, the Coast Guard is not just going to leave it there...then there can be fines levied, and all kinds of repercussions...
Yeah, me personally, I would rather have a boat that still floats, even if it is just barely above water, which would be easier to drag back to shore...
Those are my excuses and I'm sticking to them...

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

My thoughts are...
Scattered most of the time...
As they relate to foam or no foam...however...
The cost is small compared to the extra measure of safety I feel it adds to my boat...
Then again, most of my running will be in canals and lakes, where the odd submerged dead tree log could easily rip a hole in my hull and without the foam, I probably would not make it back to shore...
I also feel that even though it is not a structural foam, like one of the denser ones, it does add a certain solidness to my hull that wasn't there before I added it...
In the end it is your decision whether or not to use it...like you said, it is a 23 foot boat and it is not considered a requirement by the Coast Guard, but then again, even in my 17 footer, since it is being built by a backyard boat builder, it is not required either...
The requirement is basically for boat manufacturers...
I don't know where you plan to boat, but in my neck of the woods, the deepest any water I will usually be in is about 15-20 feet...even in such shallow water, and with a life preserver on, I sure would like to have a small island to grab on to while I wait for help to arrive, plus there be a lot of gators in my waters...sure would hate to become gator bait...
Keep in mind that you do not need to add enough foam to float the entire boat, since a lot of the boat materials themselves float...just like a life preserver that provides about 30 lbs. of floatation will keep most of us above water even though we weigh much more than 30 lbs...
And like you also mentioned, there are air pockets, too...
If you could add enough foam to compensate for just the things that would sink like a rock, your boat could stay afloat for a very long period of time, maybe even long enough to salvage it and repair/reuse it...
OH yeah, the salvage part...do you have any idea what kind of costs are involved in retrieving a boat from the bottom...You know that if it sinks, the Coast Guard is not just going to leave it there...then there can be fines levied, and all kinds of repercussions...
Yeah, me personally, I would rather have a boat that still floats, even if it is just barely above water, which would be easier to drag back to shore...
Those are my excuses and I'm sticking to them...

Great input!!!!


So as you mentioned I guess im going to calculate the weight of items which would sink like a rock. See if this seems like a solid list

Engine BB 454 - guessing 1500 lbs dressed
Outdrive Bravo1 - guessing 200 lbs
wiring lines etc - guessing 100 lbs
windshield - guessing 50 lbs
Total ----- 1850 lbs

Im thinking the fiberglass would be neutrally bouyant along with the fuel. In fact I think fuel weighs less than water so it may cancel out the actual fuel tank which is pretty light anyways.

does that seem close to a correct guess ?

 

[tpenfield]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Fiberglass is more dense than water . . . About 90 - 100 lbs per cubic foot.

 

[bigdirty]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

.... im going to calculate the weight of items which would sink like a rock. See if this seems like a solid list

Engine BB 454 - guessing 1500 lbs dressed
Outdrive Bravo1 - guessing 200 lbs
wiring lines etc - guessing 100 lbs
windshield - guessing 50 lbs
Total ----- 1850 lbs

Not sure on the exact weights, but that all sounds reasonable to me.. I have a similar setup, only differences being its a 25 footer, and has a bravo 2 (which has a bigger/beefier lower unit) oh, possibly a higher cabin/structure than yours... pardon the pun, but I'm in the 'same boat' looking at the foam that WAS there in mine... its not much, and all it has done is take on water, adding weight, and rotted the surrounding wood.. I'm leaning towards not bothering putting it back in when I rebuild...

Also don't forget to factor in the battery(s?), fridge, water heater and microwave if you have those, plus anchor(s) and full tool kit (not required by law, but I ALWAYS have one on board...) coolers full of beer, or food I suppose.. and whatever else you may have on board while out for a day trip or whatever.... it all adds up. I did a rough calculation one night and I think i was around 2500 lbs, and its mostly at the back of the boat... a little bit of foam is NOT going to keep this thing afloat if something catastrophic happens IMO. As for adding any sort of structural strength, it depends on the boat I think.. mine, well.. I seriously doubt that was its intended purpose. (if it was, they failed miserably...) tpenfield's boat, YES, its actually used to make the fuel tank a 'part' of the structure of the hull... may be the case with yours, as you say the foamed chambers carry forward into the cabin...

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Not sure on the exact weights, but that all sounds reasonable to me.. I have a similar setup, only differences being its a 25 footer, and has a bravo 2 (which has a bigger/beefier lower unit) oh, possibly a higher cabin/structure than yours... pardon the pun, but I'm in the 'same boat' looking at the foam that WAS there in mine... its not much, and all it has done is take on water, adding weight, and rotted the surrounding wood.. I'm leaning towards not bothering putting it back in when I rebuild...

Also don't forget to factor in the battery(s?), fridge, water heater and microwave if you have those, plus anchor(s) and full tool kit (not required by law, but I ALWAYS have one on board...) coolers full of beer, or food I suppose.. and whatever else you may have on board while out for a day trip or whatever.... it all adds up. I did a rough calculation one night and I think i was around 2500 lbs, and its mostly at the back of the boat... a little bit of foam is NOT going to keep this thing afloat if something catastrophic happens IMO. As for adding any sort of structural strength, it depends on the boat I think.. mine, well.. I seriously doubt that was its intended purpose. (if it was, they failed miserably...) tpenfield's boat, YES, its actually used to make the fuel tank a 'part' of the structure of the hull... may be the case with yours, as you say the foamed chambers carry forward into the cabin...

Yeah, I just cant decide what to do really. Im guessing if you calculated 2500 lbs with a 25 ft cabin cruiser then i'm prolly pretty close or maybe on the high side with 1850. mine is only 23' and its just an open bow runabout with no fridge or all the fancy stuff cruisers have.

After thinking about someones comment above I guess I was not thinking correctly that fiberglass was neutrally buoyant. I guess I was thinking about throwing a piece of wood which had been laminated with glass into the water. I would expect that to float. He however is correct that pure fiberglass wont float.

I am contemplating a couple things. First I want to do some measuring to see if using a combination of jugs or air bags and foam would be a possibility. This would give me the flotation with a lower cost as the jugs should take up a majority of the space. Plus the jugs do not soak up water.

My other option is no foam, and maybe just adding a bunch of jugs or something glued down in them. If I really go overboard and seal up each compartment I just cant see how they all could fill with water even if the hull was compromised. I know that the hull will flex and that the seal may not stay 100% water tight. Still, even with the seal breaking on all compartments I would think it would take an extremely long time for all the compartments to completely fill with water and the boat sink. I do not boat large bodies of water like lake Michigan so Im not at too big of risk of being stranded in a sunk / swamped boat.


I dunno I have some thinking to do... Any more thoughts are welcome.

 

[bigdirty]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

... Still, even with the seal breaking on all compartments I would think it would take an extremely long time for all the compartments to completely fill with water and the boat sink. I do not boat large bodies of water like lake Michigan so Im not at too big of risk of being stranded in a sunk / swamped boat.


I dunno I have some thinking to do... Any more thoughts are welcome.

I would tend to agree, but when boats sink, it usually happens faster than you might think... once the point is reached were there is too much water inside, it dont take long. I boat on Georgian bay, generally within sight of land MOST times, but I don't consider that to mean much. I was out one day in 6-8 foot waves in a 25' chriscraft.. it got scary in a hurry, and I usually dont wear a life-jacket while running, but I put it on in quick that day! The boat was very solid, no leaks or anything, but was a bit underpowered and with waves crashing and splashing over the hardtop (this was a fairly tall boat too..) I got a little nervous. And 10 mins before, it was calm and smooth, as we were 'behind' an island. I remember thinking "well, if i hit the next wave wrong we might be going over.. and tough as this boat is, its not gona float too well if she's upside down.." We made it that day, but we got wet.. :lol:

Got any pics of your boat, so we can see how and where the factory put the foam? Like I said earlier, it may not be a floatation thing so much as a strengthening thing they designed into the boat...

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

I would tend to agree, but when boats sink, it usually happens faster than you might think... once the point is reached were there is too much water inside, it dont take long. I boat on Georgian bay, generally within sight of land MOST times, but I don't consider that to mean much. I was out one day in 6-8 foot waves in a 25' chriscraft.. it got scary in a hurry, and I usually dont wear a life-jacket while running, but I put it on in quick that day! The boat was very solid, no leaks or anything, but was a bit underpowered and with waves crashing and splashing over the hardtop (this was a fairly tall boat too..) I got a little nervous. And 10 mins before, it was calm and smooth, as we were 'behind' an island. I remember thinking "well, if i hit the next wave wrong we might be going over.. and tough as this boat is, its not gona float too well if she's upside down.." We made it that day, but we got wet.. :lol:

Got any pics of your boat, so we can see how and where the factory put the foam? Like I said earlier, it may not be a floatation thing so much as a strengthening thing they designed into the boat...

Here is one pic.. Sorry it was after a lot of demolition. You can see some of the foam left on the right near the transom. That same configuration was on the left and right and follows along the sides up to the driver and passengers consoles. The tank was not foamed in. It had rubber strips separating it from the bottom of the boat.

 

[bigdirty]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Hmmmm...... that's a LOT of foam man... I'd guess 3 times what i have in mine, which makes me think it might need it for strength, as well as perhaps floatation... and a BB454 with a b1 in a small open bow boat is going to be quite arse heavy in the water... no offense intended there.... but I would consider putting it back in... just seal things up better than the factory did and i'll bet it boat will outlive you! heck, mine was almost completely dirt and dust, and she still floated... but thats 20+ years of poor maintenance, on top of poor build/design (imo) and in fact, your stringers look better than mine.. you can still describe them as 'wood' :lol:

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Hmmmm...... that's a LOT of foam man... I'd guess 3 times what i have in mine, which makes me think it might need it for strength, as well as perhaps floatation... and a BB454 with a b1 in a small open bow boat is going to be quite arse heavy in the water... no offense intended there.... but I would consider putting it back in... just seal things up better than the factory did and i'll bet it boat will outlive you! heck, mine was almost completely dirt and dust, and she still floated... but thats 20+ years of poor maintenance, on top of poor build/design (imo) and in fact, your stringers look better than mine.. you can still describe them as 'wood' :lol:

So are you saying without the foam the boat will not float? Maybe I am not understanding but I was under the impression that the hull as a whole is what displaces the water. Its only when the hull is breached and water floods in that the foam is important for flotation. Maybe i'm just not understanding what you arr trying to tell me.

I am also worried about the foam possibly being structural. I believe chaparral is still being made so i'm gonna give them a buzz and see if I can get some info.

Onto another topic I have not wanted to address. The transom!!!! So far from my drilling and beating with a hammer I have found the transom to be solid. I do however see some shavings that appear to be somewhat wet. I know where the water entered and how to fix it but no real way to get the water out.

I cant hardly stomach the idea of pulling a transom that seems to be solid. Are there any techniques or materials I could apply such as the get rot stuff to the wet areas to avoid replacing it.

If I did decide to yank the transom how in the world would I even get it out. I would think that even if I did sever the fiberglass casing around the transom its still glued to the outer skin. Is it even possible to remove a solid transom from the outer skin of a boat without distroying everything?

Thanks for the help

 

[bigdirty]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

So are you saying without the foam the boat will not float? Maybe I am not understanding but I was under the impression that the hull as a whole is what displaces the water. Its only when the hull is breached and water floods in that the foam is important for flotation. Maybe i'm just not understanding what you arr trying to tell me.

Yes and no... I'm sure if the hull is sound, it will float without the foam... but it may sit VERY low in the water without all that foam, and then put 5-600 lbs of people and gear on it ( do the math, that's only say 3, or 4 average weight persons and some 'stuff' right?) ... you might be in trouble..

I am also worried about the foam possibly being structural. I believe chaparral is still being made so i'm gonna give them a buzz and see if I can get some info.

yup, good call...

....The transom!!!! So far from my drilling and beating with a hammer I have found the transom to be solid. I do however see some shavings that appear to be somewhat wet. I know where the water entered and how to fix it but no real way to get the water out.

I cant hardly stomach the idea of pulling a transom that seems to be solid. Are there any techniques or materials I could apply such as the get rot stuff to the wet areas to avoid replacing it.

If I did decide to yank the transom how in the world would I even get it out. I would think that even if I did sever the fiberglass casing around the transom its still glued to the outer skin. Is it even possible to remove a solid transom from the outer skin of a boat without distroying everything?

Thanks for the help

yup, totaly doable... but IMO if its solid overall, leave it. Fix any leaks or issues that you see, and monitor it once the boat is back in the water. BUT; judging from that pic, there isn't much left 'in the way' and it wouldn't be a big deal to strip it all out from the inside (leaving the outer glass and shell intact) and re do it. If it were mine, Id drill some 2" or so test holes from inside in the areas you are worried about to get a better idea of how bad it is. If its only a few small areas , patch it in, glass it up and carry on. the 'get rot' stuff works well, from what ive heard, it basically replaces the rotten wood with a solid epoxy of some sort i guess, but I personally have never used it.

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Yes and no... I'm sure if the hull is sound, it will float without the foam... but it may sit VERY low in the water without all that foam, and then put 5-600 lbs of people and gear on it ( do the math, that's only say 3, or 4 average weight persons and some 'stuff' right?) ... you might be in trouble..



yup, good call...





IMO if its solid overall, leave it. Fix any leaks or issues that you see, and monitor it once the boat is back in the water. BUT; judging from that pic, there isn't much left 'in the way' and it wouldn't be a big deal to strip it all out from the inside (leaving the outer glass and shell intact) and re do it. If it were mine, Id drill some 2" or so test holes from inside in the areas you are worried about to get a better idea of how bad it is. If its only a few small areas , patch it in, glass it up and carry on. the 'get rot' stuff works well, from what ive heard, it basically replaces the rotten wood with a solid epoxy of some sort i guess, but I personally have never used it.

Yeah, im gonna work on getting the rest of the stringers out and the bits lift behind ground down. Then im gonna go to town drilling some good sized core samples in the transom. I think if I can narrow down the wet area to a fairly confined location I may just try to dry it as best I can with acetone then apply some get rot or whatever the new concoction they have out.

Should know more by the end of the weekend.

 

[GT1000000]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Yes and no... I'm sure if the hull is sound, it will float without the foam... but it may sit VERY low in the water without all that foam...

Just wanted to jump in here and dis-spell this myth...
The foam that is added to boats is either strictly for emergency floatation or structural support...
It also becomes part of the gross weight the hull is designed to carry...
With or without it, as long as the hull is solid and intact the boat will float...
The originally designed water line that the engineers came up with is a basic guide to indicate whether the boat is at, close to, or past its intended gross weight...
As a matter of fact, if you were to fill up the entire boat with foam, while leaving all of the original equipment in place and loading it up with people and gear, it may actually sit lower in the water due to the added weight of the foam...

 

[bigdirty]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Just wanted to jump in here and dis-spell this myth...
The foam that is added to boats is either strictly for emergency floatation or structural support...

Hmm.. well, either way then, judging by the pic i would ay it should be there, in this particular boat.. hard to see, but there may not be very much wood structure (stringers or bulkheads) within that foam, and like I said, its a LOT more than i had in my boat.. I'd guess its being used as a structural component in this case..

 

[tpenfield]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

I am wondering what the folks at Chaparral had to say about the foam? It should be put back if it was there originally. That way you know that the boat has its original strength.

ABYC standards are for positive flotation in boats up to 26 feet even though the USCG requires it in boats only up to 20 feet. So, in all likelihood the foam is both structural and flotation. Not putting it back the way it was may yield to a compromised structure and a quick trip to the bottom of the water (lake, ocean, bay, etc.)

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

I am wondering what the folks at Chaparral had to say about the foam? It should be put back if it was there originally. That way you know that the boat has its original strength.

ABYC standards are for positive flotation in boats up to 26 feet even though the USCG requires it in boats only up to 20 feet. So, in all likelihood the foam is both structural and flotation. Not putting it back the way it was may yield to a compromised structure and a quick trip to the bottom of the water (lake, ocean, bay, etc.)

Im starting to think by how poorly it was glassed together from the factory the foam was what was holding it together LOL

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

What have you all found to be the best way to cut the floor flush to the hull sides. Or at least as close as possible. My Skill saw leaves at least a full 2 inches which is gonan be a pain if I decide to cut flush.

 

[jbcurt00]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

I choose to cut the deck back about an inch or 2, on purpose. Helped keep from cutting thru the hull.

Then used a grinder & multi-tool to cut up from below to remove the 2" lip. Then hit it w/ the grinder & smooth any remaining ridge.

 

[Axkiker]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

Anyone else found the tabbing that was used to attach the stringers to the hull to not be thoroughly saturated with resin. As I have been removing stringers and cutting back the glass I have noticed that the deeper layers of tabbing have hardly any resin. The fibers are literally dry and almost hair like.

I was worried that I would have to grind all of this down to the solid glass of the hull but I have found a pretty good trick. Take an air hammer and weld a wide wood chisel to the tip. It makes quick work of the dry glass and has been pulling it off in large sheets.

Thanks god I found at least one trick to speed up this horrible process.

Is this a one off bad build or just typical of boat building.

 

[tpenfield]

Re: 1994 Chaparral 230 rebuild thread

We do need to see some pictures of what you are doing . . .

I have been repairing the structure of my Formula and I can say what you are seeing in your boat is not typical of other boats. The tabbing on my boat is a fairly thick biaxial cloth thoroughly wetted.