1985 Sea Craft CC

[shine]

hello,

I am considering rebuilding a 23' seacraft, one I have my eye on is a 1985 model. I would appreciate any information or opinions on this year hull. I would be rebuilding from the hull up, may or may not use old stingers, depends what I find. Would probably enclose transom and install bracket, re-power with a single 200-250.

Would not use liner, and I expect I should be able to shave at least a couple hundred pounds (probably a lot more) of the weight.

Input please

Joel Shine

[rockdoc]

If you're not using the liner you might want to core the hull.

Steve

[shine]

If you're not using the liner you might want to core the hull.

Steve

Thanks. Im sure I will need to stiffen up the sides. Anything else I should be looking for?

[Blue197320]

i just started re-doing an 87 23'. one of my stringers is good. the port side one has been cut by a P.O. once i fix it i should be good to go. im going to be closing the transom and putting a bracket as well.

[Blue_Heron]

Hey, Joel, welcome to classicseacraft. I was following your Aquasport 222 rebuild on Bateau2. Nice work.

You can't go wrong with a Seacraft 23 hull. At the level of restoration you're planning, I don't think it matters whether you start with an '85 hull or a Potter. The Repairs/Mods forum is full of rebuilds of these boats. The internal structure of the '85 will not differ substantially from the Potter era boats. If you check out some of the posts here, you'll have a good idea what to expect when you open up the '85.

Unless money is no object or you really want to shed weight, you will probably want to re-use the box stringers even if you trash the liner. There's no wood in the box stringers, but they are full of flotation foam you'll probably want to replace. The Potters had a wood cored keel stringer, I don't recall if the post Potter hulls do, though.

If you go ahead with the project, please post here in Repairs/Mods, or at least post a link to your thread on Bateau2.
Dave

[shine]

Hi Dave, thanks for the kind words on the AS. If I take on the project, it will be the same level of finish as the AS. Having intact stringers is part of the appeal in this boat. I may keep this boat for myself

Not sure if I would do all marine ply or go the foam core route. If I think I might sell it then I will use foam, keep it = wood

I will be sure to post here.

Joel

[Blue197320]

why would you use foam if you intend to sell it one day and wood if you intend to keep it??
my 87 does not have a keel stringer in it. maybe i should add one??

[Ryan]

Blue you wont need a keel stringer unless you are using an old style roller trailer. The wood keel stringer was there for supporting the roller style trailers of the 60s and 70s With the new style bunk trailers the keel stirnger is not necessary.

[shine]

wood is a lot easier, and less expensive. If done properly with epoxy, it will last indefinitely. Foam core takes a lot more time to do properly (inserts, transitions, etc) and it wont save very much weight over wood. So basically, it adds time and money with very little or no payoff to me if I keep the boat. BUT if I were to sell it, fighting the common perception of "no wood" is not a crusade I want to spend time on

Even if it will be a person boat, I would still use some foam core or honey comb in areas where the payoff to work/cost is worthwhile - maybe the transom.

Have to find a good hull first

[Blue197320]

im starting the re-do on my 87 23 now. was going to use wood penetrated with epoxy for the floor. the bluewater 26 1.5" core costs about 400 dollars versus $90 for a 3/4" sheet of marine ply. i was going to do it there to save on weight and that it wont rot on me.