Classic SeaCraft Community  

Go Back   Classic SeaCraft Community > Recovered Threads
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-02-2017, 12:15 PM
dginge dginge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 198
Default

Thanks so much. Very cool.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:11 PM
Chrismacholz Chrismacholz is offline
Recovered
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 44
Default

I have a 1987 and it's a fantastic boat. If you can get past the stigma that it's not a Potter you will enjoy it. People tend to over analyze this stuff - I know I did when I was shopping around. I prefer the layout of the post-potter hulls anyway. The transom is much cleaner and you have a bigger cockpit because of it. These later boats also have bigger gas tanks and better scupper layout.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-05-2017, 06:27 AM
kmoose kmoose is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ocala, Florida
Posts: 1,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrismacholz View Post
I have a 1987 and it's a fantastic boat. If you can get past the stigma that it's not a Potter you will enjoy it. People tend to over analyze this stuff - I know I did when I was shopping around. I prefer the layout of the post-potter hulls anyway. The transom is much cleaner and you have a bigger cockpit because of it. These later boats also have bigger gas tanks and better scupper layout.
I agree, I would have no issue going with an SCI hull. some say Potters are built like tanks but is there any real evidence of that? Maybe, but that isn't always a good thing if more glass was used beyond what was structurally needed. I can also tell you Potter hulls aren't perfect. When you dig as deep as I have into then you will certainly find shortcomings in certain areas of construction.
__________________
[b]The Moose is Loose !
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-05-2017, 11:16 AM
otterhound otterhound is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shelter Island, NY
Posts: 242
Default

I totally agree with Kmoose and the above statement. On my 78 Potter 18 I had to replace the bow eye last year. When I finally got an access hole cut in the liner I found out that the glass was over 1/2" thick in the bow. In general our 18 is a very heavy boat. That being said though I will definitely take one that's too heavy over one that's too light any day of the week.
Rod
__________________
The older I get the faster I was!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-05-2017, 12:36 PM
FLexpat FLexpat is offline
Recovered
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 669
Default

Lots of the old boats (like my 1965 Bertram 20) used very heavy layups for a couple of reasons; they really did not know how strong the layups were and, in those days, they used a lot of mat and woven roving - both of which need a whole lot of resin. Now we have stitched fabrics like biaxial, triaxial, etc which are substantially stronger than woven roving or cloth because the fibers lay straight and do not have kinks in them plus these newer fabrics take a lot less resin for a good layup. The net result is that it probably takes 1/3 to 1/2 of the 'old style' layup thickness and weight to get the same or greater strength with the new materials. That said, it is easy to have a strong but much thinner layup with the new stuff that still gets damaged by the idiot slinging an anchor on a thin part of the deck (strong but no impact tolerant layer).
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All original content © 2003-2013 ClassicSeacraft