1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

Not Quite as Bad as I Thought
whalerman	#21  Posted on 09/03/09 - 11:26 AM
Member Posts: 540 Comments: 5 Joined: 06/26/07	I seem to recall, I think, that when Jeff did his outrage deck/fuel tank , that the dehumidifier didn,t really work. He cut away some of the foam to let the water migrate there. Then applied new foam the way he wanted arround the pump that was installed. At anyrate will be looking for the photo's when you get time. Cheers THOM : 1999 Outrage 18, 2012 E-TEC 150, 2012 EZ Loader trailer
Bo Neato	#22  Posted on 09/03/09 - 1:02 PM
Member Posts: 79 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/08/07	I was just wondering. I wouldn't think the dehumidifier would be too effective as it relies on good air circulation to effectively remove moisture. I thought the silica gel might be effective in a closed container/environment (wrapped hull) because it draws moisture to itself continuously until it is in an equilibrium with the moisture content of it's surroundings. I figured it might actually draw the moisture from the foam with the environment being otherwise fairly static. Maybe it's may be time to do a little experimenting with some Great Stuff and silica on a micro scale? My little guy's toy boats may be in trouble, lol.
whalerman	#23  Posted on 09/03/09 - 1:12 PM
Member Posts: 540 Comments: 5 Joined: 06/26/07	Interesting thought on the silica gel, hadn't occured to me. It does a great job for the toolbox, as does ,get this, moth balls. No joke, it really works. Only problem is the odor. THOM : 1999 Outrage 18, 2012 E-TEC 150, 2012 EZ Loader trailer
Derwd24	#24  Posted on 09/03/09 - 1:44 PM
Member Posts: 1607 Comments: 9 Joined: 05/09/07	Well you figure you've got 3-4" deep of wet foam to deal with. The silica would do well to draw moisture from the top of the foam that's exposed, but the problem comes in the time it would take the rest of the moisture to migrate through the thickness of the foam to reach the silica. I've read that wet foam is like the consistency of a juicy apple core, and is very stubborn about letting go of the moisture it's holding. Dave - 1983 Outrage 22
kamie	#25  Posted on 09/03/09 - 5:07 PM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Dave, Juicy apple core it basically what the foam looks and feels like when it's wet, at least the wet parts that have not been exposed to the air. I am wondering as I scrape bottom paint off, if I can dig out the foam, without cutting up all the deck? Maybe cut some access strips and dig out the foam sideways. then once it's all cleard out and dry, pour new foam.
Derwd24	#26  Posted on 09/04/09 - 3:58 PM
Member Posts: 1607 Comments: 9 Joined: 05/09/07	I think that would be a good way to do it. You could then tip the boat when pouring the foam in through the access holes, depending on what section you're doing, to help ensure it rises fully in that space. One of the advantages to doing a 13, maneuverability. The other advantage is you could make sure your access holes aren't near the hour glass shaped struts that tie the floor to the outside hull for stability. Can't say I remember exactly, but I think there are 6, 3 stbd and 3 port? If you take the whole floor up, you'll have to deal with refastening those. Dave - 1983 Outrage 22
kamie	#27  Posted on 09/04/09 - 5:25 PM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Dave, do you know where the struts are? Are they evenly placed from the stern to the bow, any photos that you know of? I am thinking that if I cut a strip about where the seats were, I could reach aft and clean out the foam in the stern. i would have to see how far forward I can reach and do the same. It is really wet from the stern to forward of where the console should be. I might also get brave and open up the port gunal. There was an off brand rail that left a huge hole where the foam is also very wet.
todd12	#28  Posted on 09/04/09 - 8:00 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 220 Comments: 0 Joined: 07/27/06	kamie, This is just my 2 cents. I would open the hull up from the inside floor. That inside skin is not very thick. if you are going to roll nonskid on , the repair would be undetectable. My other concern would be those major repairs if done on the outside the hull would now be sitting in the water. That all being said its your boat and you must contend with the out come . I am with you on getting some of that wet foam out. Edited by todd12 on 09/04/09 - 8:02 PM Todd
kamie	#29  Posted on 09/05/09 - 5:16 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Todd, all openings to remove foam would be from the inside. I have no intention to open up the outside except to fix what is already open. It remains to be seen how much work I get done before winter.
kamie	#30  Posted on 11/20/09 - 10:07 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	View of the Struts If you look at the photo's you can see one with all the foam removed clearly showing the hourglass struts Dave mentions. Since the photo is looking from the bow to the stern the open looking strut on the left i believe holds the wood for the console. The location can be identified by using the wood locating diagrams on this site.
Tom W Clark	#31  Posted on 11/20/09 - 10:47 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	The term Whaler used is "Shear Brace," not Strut. You can read about the purpose of the Shear Braces in the original Boston Whaler Patent. Edited by Joe Kriz on 07/29/16 - 6:59 PM
kamie	#32  Posted on 11/21/09 - 7:25 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Tom, Thanks for the correction, either way now I know where they are on the 13. It is also clear that if I use the center as access to dig out the foam, I won't risk their damage. once I finish the bottom in the spring, it will be interesting to see if this works. I do believe that I will need to have the boat sitting on the ground when I pour the foam so I can tip the hull and fill any open spaces.
skred	#33  Posted on 11/21/09 - 9:19 AM
Member Posts: 33 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/23/09	BW references list the 13 Sport at 330 lbs. You may not be as wet as you think....
Tom W Clark	#34  Posted on 11/21/09 - 9:27 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	No Skred, the 330 pound specification is for a much later model. Kamie's boat is a 1971 model and should weigh between 250-275 pounds....with the seats in place.
kamie	#35  Posted on 11/21/09 - 10:02 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	skred, believe me it is a wet as I think. Since I know it currently weighs 400#, I am looking at 150# of water. If I can drop her even 100# i would be very happy. Ultimately my plan is to replace the 30HP evinrude with either a 30HP ETec, unless I can find an older 40HP model.
kamie	#36  Posted on 11/23/09 - 6:52 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Just a note, according to whaler a bare 1971 hull should weight about 270#
Tom W Clark	#37  Posted on 11/23/09 - 8:25 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Kamie -- Could you clarify what you mean by "according to whaler"?
kamie	#38  Posted on 11/23/09 - 10:21 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Tom, It almost sounds as if you think I am making this up? "according to whaler" means that according to an email response from Chuck Bennett a bare 1971 13 foot hull "without anything in the hull .. about 270lbs."
Tom W Clark	#39  Posted on 11/23/09 - 11:11 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Kamie, No, not at all. It was a simple question. It is best not to read things into what I write that are not actually there. I am very a plain spoken person. The answer to my question is: Chuck Bennett, who (for those following this discussion and who may not already know) is a long time Customer Service Representative at Boston Whaler and a tireless source of good information. It is always a good idea to cite your sources to avoid confusion and reinforce the veracity of the information presented. Chuck's response is interesting because in the 1971 Boston Whaler Catalog they list the weight of the 13 foot models as being between 250 and 275 pounds and that is supposed to be the total weight, not just bare hull.
kamie	#40  Posted on 11/23/09 - 6:29 PM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	Tom, I believe the 1971 catalog lists the average weight of the 13 between 250 and 275 (bare hull, standard and sport). If you look at the 1972 catalog, which is really the hull that I have it lists the average weight between 250 and 325 (bare hull, standard, sport, sourpuss). Given the assessment that weights listed are on the light side, 270 doesn't sound that bad. The one thing I do know for sure, is the hull I have is 400# which is a tad on the heavy side. I will be happy if I can get it down to 300#, 250-270 will be a nice goal.