posted 12-12-2002 10:43 PM ET (US)            

That is an old wives tale. Whaler did not change the foam in the boats they made. The foam used is closed cell polyurethane foam, and it has been since the beginning in 1958.

Closed cell polyurethane foam is not supposed to absorb water. Whaler has always maintained that their hulls will not absorb water. Whaler’s web site ( http://www.whaler.com/REC/maintenancefaqs.shtm ) states categorically that the foam will not absorb water.

But the fact is: the foam can absorb water. I’m not exactly sure why, or under what conditions this occurs, but there are some very good examples of waterlogged Whalers out there. I do know that the foam does not absorb water very easily and I suspect it takes some special circumstances for absorption to take place.

posted 12-14-2002 02:51 PM ET (US)            

I restored one Montauk that was completely soaked.

I drilled some small holes in the transom where the hull meets the transom. I then tipped it up and it drained for two weeks.

posted 12-15-2002 12:11 AM ET (US)            

when you're shopping for a whaler make sure you look for the following:

1) obvious repairs along the keel and lifting strakes.
2) failed drain tubes. All drain tubes on whaler hulls should have a stainless clamshell to deflect water away from it. if the clamshell is missing, the drain tube is susceptible to water intrusion. you should also check the tubes for corrosion or seeping water.
3)if trailered, is it on a bunk trailer with keel rollers? Roller trailers can cause the fiberglass to seperate from the foam, creating a space where water can collect.

posted 12-19-2002 09:37 PM ET (US)            

I'd pick a waterlogged Whaler over a dry single skin hull anyday!

I don't want to sound like a doubting Thomas, but how do you know the water was in the foam and not in hull voids?

i worked in customer service at boston whaler when they were in rockland and i have actually seen waterlogged hulls that have been disected. some had huge voids in them. some had delaminated hulls, some had areas full of small voids, which we referred to as striations. the top three causes were hull cracks, failed drain tubes, and improper trailers.

whaler foam has always been closed cell foam. a closed cell iss essentially a bubble that can not be permeated. the only way water can get into the bubble is when the bubble is ruptured. the only way to rupture the bubble is by some form of physical trauma.

posted 12-19-2002 10:01 PM ET (US)            

You obviously haven't read the CSW thread I referred you to. I know the water is in the foam because I dissected the entire hull. The largest void we found was about the size of an unshelled peanut.The foam was dripping wet just like a juicy apple. I still have a big chunk of it that has all the skin removed from around it and it weighs a quite a bit. All the documentation and specifics are in the above referenced thread.

I know what the idea of closed cell foam is. But it is not that simple. I'd be happy to email you the engineer's report that I quoted from which includes the spectra and photomicrographs of the five foam samples that were analyzed.

posted 12-20-2002 02:30 AM ET (US)            

I apologize for not reading the thread you mentioned before replying and also for missing the key word in your previous posting, "remnant". If you note the time this is posted you'll see that I have spent quite a while reviewing the entire thread! I applaud your efforts. Boston Whaler spent a lot of money doing what you got a bunch of enthusiasts to do for free.

After reviewing the thread, let me modify my statement slightly. If you do not fold bend or otherwise mutilate the foam it will not absorb water.

The photo of the core sample of CSW showed 4 very distinct striations, or fault lines. Striations are caused by moving water, much the same way the Grand Canyon was formed. It also appears that there was more water retention in the areaaround the striations. The hull had a huge patch on the bottom. This could have been to repair an impact, or wear and tear from excessive groundings. It is most likely that this is where the water intrusion started. The longer the boat was used in this condition the greater the intrusion. Based on the size of the patch, the boat was probably repaired upside down sealing some remaning water inside. Over the years this water would freeze, expand, and fracture the closed cells, further widening the striations.

I believe your contention is that the water migrated down from the deck because the boat was frequently left full of water. Normally I would say this is impossible, however the striations shown in the photo appear to extend from deck to keel. The holes in the deck must have penetrated the striations, which allowed more water into the hull which, when frozen, fractured more cells, and as one of the labs suggested, the damage increased exponentially, until the hull became totally saturated. The voids are very small, but very extensive, like veins in the human body.

I would not say the hull absorbed the water. I think it's more accurate to say the water was very slowly injected and methodically injected into the hull. Even with some water in the hull, if the deck and drain tubes had been properly maintained CSW would still be a viable boat today. That's my theory, I'm sticking with it.

In regard to the foam, all my training at Whaler indicates they have always used the same closed cell urethane foam. It is highly likely that over 30 years their may be slight variations due changes in vendors, or EPA regulations. My experience suggests that only foam exposed to sunlight turns brown. Urethane paints and varnishes have U/V inhibitors in them to keep them from discoloring. In the right climate it doesn't take long for the foam to discolor.

posted 12-20-2002 10:31 PM ET (US)            

I hope you enjoyed reading all that; I know it's quite a load.

I still have to reject some of what you say based on my experience. While we could argue about the meaning of the word "absorb", I think it more useful to simply acknowledge that this boat was full of water.

Obviously the numerous holes and wear spots allowed water to contact the foam. I’m sure the hard life this boat apparently lived was part of why it got so wet. No argument from me there. And of course, if the hull had been sealed up after any damage had occurred the hull would not have gotten wet. That really goes without saying.

If a Whaler hull were filled with O-Cello sponges it would not absorb water so long as the hull were totally sealed, so that's not the point. The point is that Whaler has always maintained that their foam will not absorb water, period. This is not true and I now reject that dogma.

Your statement: “If you do not fold bend or otherwise mutilate the foam it will not absorb water.“ is not accurate. There was plenty of unmolested foam in CSW that was sopping wet. For example, the splashwell dam the separates the splashwell from the interior of the boat was in relatively good shape. No holes, patches or cracks and no delamination, yet the foam up under the top of the dam was saturated. The water had to migrate upwards through the foam to get there! That’s what I mean when I say “absorb”.

Yes, Whaler always used closed cell polyurethane foam. That has already been well established. The formulations have changed through the years for the reasons stated. And yes, we learned that the brown color of the foam was the result of UV rays from the sun darkening it. When I cut up CSW it took only a couple of days for the foam to turn from white to “stale apple” brown. (Note: Whaler foam after 1993 is yellow or yellowish, not white.)

You needn’t defend Whaler. You have stumbled across the greatest Whaler Fan Club on the face of the Earth! and I’m right at the top of the list of fanatics. As Andy points out, even though CSW weighed over a thousand pounds it still floated! You gotta love that!

But I call ‘em, like I see ‘em and this whole experiment has been both fun and enlightening. I have 23 years of Whaler ownership experience of five different Whalers and I still think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. The popularity of this site is strong evidence that I am not alone.