Seacast: The Bottom Line

[foca]

OK, there seems to be a good amount of debate surrounding this seacast stuff. But, not too many testimonials and longterm experiences from people that have used it. So, use it or not use it? where? why or why not?

Some on this board question it's adhesion to existing skins. Some say it's too flexible. Some want to know exactly what it's properties are. All this is fine and dandy, but has anyone actually experimented with it. Compression tests, water absorption, bonding strength to dry wood, bonding strength to different resins, bondability to it by different resins, including epoxy, anything and everything.

I got to speak with the biggest fan and user of the stuff, Wolfgang Unger. Of course, he came up with the stuff and sells it. But, needless to say he has the most experience with it, and has been in the fiberglass boat industry for a long time (over 20 years). And he seems to be a great guy, not that that's a good reason to use seacast. I am considering, and probably will, visit his shop next weekend, so there will be more to come.

In our brief conversations, he states that he has never seen a failure in 15 years of using the stuff. He has a 12 year old data point, his son's boat. He says hollow out the bad wood. And even though his instructions say you must remove all wood, he told me that if you hit good, DRY wood, seacast will bond to it and bond extremely well. In fact, he went further to say that the Seacast poly resin will bond better to wood than to another poly resin (after I asked if I should add separation layer of poly).

I am still new to this seacast and fiberglass repair game, so I am in the process of further researching and trying out some of this stuff. Just for background I have a open fish, closed transom, 26' scarab with a twin bracket. I need to redo the transom (some good wood) and some stringers, and all from the inside access panels.

I know there are several knowledgeable people out there, so what is your take on the stuff? I'd like to start a discussion to try to get to the bottom line (or at least closer to it), from an engineers perspective. I am not satisfied with people saying that they don't like it, and they have never used it or at least experimented with it, or even looked at a sample of the stuff. Maybe this stuff is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not give it a try?

[JR-Shine]

I don’t know enough about the physical properties of the resin to say if its a "good" idea or not .... but I guess what your saying is that no one knows because it has never been tested? The resin might bond better to wood than any other polyester out there, but even that’s not close to as good as epoxy.

For a boat I really cared about, I would probably go the proven route of replacing the core with wood/foam and laminating it back in with epoxy and directional glass.

Joel
boatbuildercentral.com

[PAR]

I have been in contact with SeaCast and have had a milk toast list of questions answered, but not the ones that count. They've said repeatedly that they would send me a detailed list of the properties, but I've been waiting months.

The sample, advertising fluff in a brochure, and a few emails have netted the following.

It is a polyester resin, intended as a core material, they said 0 water absorption, but I don't believe this, didn't give compressive, tensile, heat distortion, hardness, (not that important in a core material) or any other data other then cured weight (near 50 pounds per cu. ft.) The sample had a 1/6" skin of 'glass on each side set in what I don't know (epoxy, polysomething who knows) and the glass type I'm also unsure of.

The sample was quite flexible, though to small to do any real testing on, was subjected to a few. The bonded skin over the core material was well bonded (polyester and cloth is my guess) heat distortion was easy to see at 160 plus degrees, no measured moisture absorption over 3 days under 20 PSI 100% emersion (but epoxy wouldn't have shown any, I could measure by then either) Resin alone has little strength, so what's the reinforcement? It had the same texture and feel of cured CPES, but much thicker then you'd have on a surface, sort of what you'd get with a pot kicking off on you with too much still left to do. I sliced little pieces off and noted the very rubbery nature and lack of a grain direction, though the pieces were very small and I just a 10x glass.

If this bond could be duplicated in a rotted out scraped clean, hollowed out, transom void, where mold, mildew, little beasties of all sorts like to live, much unlike the clean and surely sanitary conditions the sample was done in, then I say it would make a heavy, but serviceable core to pour into a transom shell with it's holes plugged.

In reality, the surface of the skins on the inside of a transom that's had some rot in it will be a bonding nightmare. So the idea of splitting open the top of a transom, pouring in some goo in a can and all's better, isn't realistic. At least one skin will need removing to do a reasonable job of cleaning the surfaces to be bonded.

I'm going to question any product/material that has the hype their (SeaCast) brochure has. Maybe it's the southerner in me, or the lack of data to support the advertising fluff. Most companies support their products with testing and basic data, so they can justify the hype and make their salespersons jobs much easier.

[foca]

My thoughts were exact. It seems like you took the sample pretty far. I simply did an imersion test. But bonding is a big question mark in my mind. However, with an exotherm of ~190 deg, this may be more of a "weld" to the old skin. Rather than your standard glue-type bond. what do you think PAR?

I am tempted to go by Wolfgang's shop this week, checking out what he's got and what is going on project-wise there. 15 years of use, you'd think he'd of come across a sample he could pour and then cut out to see how well the bond worked to the once rotten-laden skins. Maybe I'll get the chance at a few pictures. More to come...

As far as my transom goes, I am removing many sections of the skins from the inside. Getting a good, clean surface, will be possible, though painfull. I am divided with just going a little farther and replacing everything in sections of wood. Of course, lapping over seems with 2-3 layers of marine ply. Then relaying onto this fresh wood. mat, mat, weeve (vert), mat, weeve (45 deg off), weeve (20 deg off).

I think I may want to explore more of the seacast though, whether I end up using it or not. I may just pick-up a 1/2 gallon and do some experiments. PAR, if there is anything you can think of trying that would help come to a conclusion, perhaps I can perform the experiment during my trials. I am interested in seeing how it bonds to what I got, both skins and dry wood. Perhaps coming up with a list of questions would be good too. maybe I could get those answers they have been promising you.

[PAR]

I just deleted the email they sent me a few weeks ago saying it would be a few days before I got the technical info in the snail mail (right)

I don't give a damn about what he's been doing, I just can't justify the use and cost to a client without the material spec sheet in my hand. What do I tell a customer when his transom falls, because I wanted to save a few bucks and short cutted his job on an untested product.

You'd think after 15 years they'd have some testing or tech. data info available.

Screw 'em, I don't have time for folks uninterested in doing the right thing for their customer base or potential base.

If you want to play with the stuff, which seemed too flexible for my liking, then have at it. My main concern is still the bonding issue with areas having had delamination, rot and a host of other ills, for several years and making it work with the little access their flyer suggests it can be done with.

Try that line of crap on the folks at WestSystem, FGCI, SystemThree, Crown or any other manufacture of long chain poly blends and see what they have to say about the performance of their products. More importantly, how fast they'd respond to the suggestions placed in the SeaCast advertising, but used on their products . . .

My first email request was back in February. Screw 'em . . .

[foca]

PAR,

I am totally with you. From what I have gathered from a few conversations, the shop up there seems a little disorganized. I cannot fathom how this guy has been using this stuff for so long, without doing a series of tests to justify claims and properties. The only thing I can think of, is that his attitude is one of "trust me, it will work", as if there is no doubt in his mind. This confidence supposedly comes from the years of experience with this stuff and in industry, but I hope the confidence is not built on his possible ignorance in getting to the truth about the product.

Perhaps it is not as good of a replacement as wood, but it is so "easy" and it is good enough. And that's the hook. get back on the water quicker. All ideas that make me nervous.

PAR, can I use your name as a reference when I ask for that property list. You know, give him one more chance, see if he came up with something. Maybe the stuff is at an independent lab right now getting all those specs professionally calculated and tested. fat chance, right? Well, it's worth a look at his shop. maybe I'll learn something.

PAR, here's my number: 305-527-7223. gimme a call if you have some time, maybe we could collaborate on this when I go up there. Do a conference call or something. I will be going on Friday.

[foca]

went out there. Wolfgang was gone, so I did not meet him. Spoke with some of the shop guys. real helpful and nice. great people out there, all around.

saw a transom that was poured, got some picts. rough conclusions:

- thick stuff to pour
- does not stick to wood
- final result is SOLID
- fiberglass filler made of scrapped boats. strands are about 1/2" long.

bought a half gallon. will do some experimenting.

More to come.

[JR-Shine]

I wonder what kind of polyester resin (It's polyester right?) the mix is made of. If it is all polyester wouldn’t that make it quite brittle? I think most polyester resins have a very small amount of "flex", so could a quick change in the load on the Seacast transom make it crack. Maybe all the chopped glass you said they put in keeps this from happening. Let us know how the tests go.

[PAR]

According to SeaCast, it's polyester. It's intended to be a core material. The sample I have is quite flexible, even with the two thin skins of 'glass applied to each face. They still haven't sent any test data nor material properties.

[alan wallis]

has you heard of a alernitive to seacast i live in the uk and seacast due not ship it to the uk
and i dont want to put ply back in if ican help it
alan

[tja]

Why don't you just forget about Seacast and do the job the right way with the proper materials. If your replacing a transom in an outboard boat for example remove the deck tear out the rotted wood and put in new wood. If you do it right it will be better then new. Hope I wasn't too direct, Tom

[SeagullVolusia]

We have had, in the past few months, personnel problems. We will be posting our new website next week - which will have third party tests posted. If there is anyone that needs to view our tests email us at wolflear@yahoo.com or call Toll Free (866)716-4820. Note, we have always had on our old website an entire page with testimonials and an entire forum dedicated to testimonials.

-Staff
Seagull of Volusia County, Inc.
www.transomrepair.com

[PAR]

Lookie here, a post from the SeaCast folks, several months after the questions were raised. A whole page and forum of testimonials! Wow, we learn what from them, that the folks listed there are pleased, imagine that. Sort of like calling the references listed at the bottom of a resume, all saying how great a worker the person is. Who'd of guessed.

At 50 pounds per cubic foot for SeaCast, I can build a lighter and stronger transom that does stick to wood. They told me via email they would send "detailed" product info, test results and would do so in a "few weeks". That was February of 2004. Test results are the best selling tool going if interested in sales to more then the backyard Joe. There are hundreds of repair shops in Florida, installing new transoms each year. They'd likely use the product if they understood what it was, it's properties and how it related in a cost effective comparison to other transom repair products and techniques.

I don't have time for companies that don't have time for me. I got two boats that need to be in shape for shows in early March and two designs that need to be finalized before that. I'm going to hold my breath, right . . .

[tdmuir]

I would like to have some help here....I'm very new to the boating world...I have aquired a 1970 Reinell I/O Boat....I have already removed 100% of the rotted wood from the transom area....A very minor little bit of wood is left between the floor deck and the transom outer fiberglass shell....The wood is very dry....My question is in regards to this seacast product....I was almost ready to purchase this product to rebuild my transom until I have read the posts here....My question is what is the major difference between today's composite hulls made of the 1/4" fiberglass / foam material / 1/4" fiberglass construction and a full solid material like seacast? What I'm reading in this forum is the flexibilty in the product. I'm not trying to back seacast...I just would like some helpful imformation to better make my decision to the best and longest lasting transom...Time is not of an issue...I don't have to be anywhere in a week or be on the water in a certain time....I would greatly appreciate any feedback positive or negative....Thanks in advance to any help!

[PAR]

Do yourself a favor and rebuild your transom with the same methods used for it's original construction, except use epoxy to glue everything back together. The poly resins used in the original construction, don't stick well to the plywood used in the transom. This and leaks around fasteners allowed water to enter you transom, rotting it out. If your fastener holes are bonded with epoxy and the replacement transom is bonded with epoxy, this issue is much less likely to reappear.

SeaCast has been unwilling or unable to respond about the properties of their product, which makes me and others think something isn't right.

Do a search for transom replacement on this site and a bunch of hits will show up. Log onto the WWW.WestSystem.com site and get their free how-to manuals and learn about the processes needed to get it done properly.

[SeagullVolusia]

What is the major difference between today's composite hulls made of the 1/4" fiberglass, foam material, 1/4" fiberglass construction and a full solid material like Seacast® :

• The difference is that Seacast® is based on the same material as the rest of the boat a the hull. Seacast® has a certain amount of resiliency, which keeps it from cracking. In seventeen years we have never had a cracked or broken transom. Even with the enormous Hp hung on some transoms.
•*In contrast to foam, Seacast® is not friable - so the bond is superior. Seacast® has been tested by a dropping 20 lb weight, from a height of 10 ft, on a 6" wide 1.5” thick piece of transom - did not break after 200 repeats. In comparison, a standard plywood transom is destroyed after one drop and all other materials tested failed after the third drop.
• As to the question of bonding to wood. Yes, it bonds very well, BUT you must remember the wood itself will be the “weak link”.

Flexural Test Results
• Structural Composites, Inc. tested Seacast® against marine plywood.

Panels Flex Strength Flex Modulus Max Load Catalyst

Seacast® A 17290 psi 903762 psi 6053 lb MEKP
laminate
Seacast® B 17641 psi 845039 psi 6443 lb BPO
laminate
21 Ply hardwood 10204 psi 1005342 psi 3598 lb

All other tests results will be on our new website soon.

[tdmuir]

Guys, I don't know what all of the fuss with seacast is about. I called and talked to a representative at Seagull of Volusia on February 10th to request some written information and a sample of their seacast product. I recieved the seacast sample and the step by step guidelines for its use on February 15th. That is only 3 working days. I find that to be excellent customer service. The product sample that I recieved was a small piece measuring 1.5" thick and approximately 3" in width by 1/2" in thickness. From what I can see this seacast is very strong and adherses very well to "Fiberglass". With reading all of the information sheet and the website it clearly states that seacast is a filler compound to be sandwiched between fiberglass barriers. I'm a firm believer in the product now that I've actually had it in my hands. Seagull of Volusia, I say to you that I will be using the product in the very near future to pour a transom. If that goes off without a hitch then I do plan on using it to redo the stringers in the boat as well. Thanks again to Seagull for their wonderful customer service. You all obviously believe in your product.

[bill11]

undefinedundefinedundefined

I have run a boatyard that has used the seacast to repair rotted stringers in a powerboat. I was not at all impressed with the application or the results. After "pouring" 4 stringers and letting them cure I was not satisfied with the results. There was an excessive amount of time prepping the existing skins in order for the seacast to properly adhear to the skins.The resulting "stringers" did not exhibit nearly the strength or rigidity I needed. I ended up replacing the stringers with wood glassed over.

[steigermike]

par is right on with this, there is no way around doing it the right way and briefly that is to remove the rotted core from the inside leaving the outer skin and going with a synthetic or marine ply as your core material and using a traditional layup method with west system epoxy.

[jahale]

Three years ago I was given an old Mark Twain. I gutted and redid the interior, and on the third weekend out the transom split. It was rotten. I looked at my options, trash a boat I just refurnished, spend 1500 on a transom repair, or try something else. I chose Seacast. Granted it took time to chainsaw out the old transom completely, but with prep, shipping, and curring, the process took me very little time on the whole, much less than replacing the transom the other way. The Seacast was easy to pour, and the transom came out perfect, in fact, much stronger than the original ever was. That was three years ago, and it has been tested many times since. Total Cost $350. I will recommend and support Seacast as long as its around. The product saved me soo much time, work, and money. I don't know about using it for floors or anything else, but it is the best for transoms.

[foca]

UPDATE!!!!!

I made Seagull's month. I spent over $1500 on the stuff. what i did was not possible with any other (sane) rebuilding method. Main stringers all the way forward and transom are now FULLY COMPOSITE... no more balsa. all this without touching my deck and working only through access hatches. all my original gellcoat remained!! why rebuild with an inferior product when you can make it last forever... hmmmm... ok maybe just longer. if you can take the extra 200 lb penalty... seacast and epoxy all the way dudes!

THEN, i hung a 30" bracket and twin V6 HPDI's on the back. I've been pounding the boat for 3 years... zero signs of stress fatigue so far. Looks like it came like this from the factory.

screw west systems, call up mark at US composites and tell him to set you up with the his thin epoxy and some combo 45 deg mat.

WOOD SUCKS!

[rwatson]

UPDATE!!!!!

WOOD SUCKS!

What you mean is BALSA sucks.

Quite a lot of discussion on that around these forums.

[PAR]

Foca, what you did was pour a liquid polyester, into dirty and contaminated stringer cavities. Polyester requires a mechanical bond in this application, which you can't get without exposing the previous core areas and grinding them with a very aggressive grit.

In short, you now have stringer tubes full of a material that doesn't offer longitudinal strength, but most importantly isn't well bonded with the laminate. For a cored structure to work as intended, the core and the laminate have to be well bonded. If they aren't the core will shear from the laminate and the two will act independently of each other, which isn't good.

I hope you have good luck with your choices, but I've repaired enough stringers and transoms to know for sure, that there's no miracle goo in a can going to save the day.

[foca]

What you mean is BALSA sucks.

Quite a lot of discussion on that around these forums.

hmmm, NO, i mean ALL WOOD sucks. my transom wasn't balsa, and most aren't. They rot too.

i work for a company that makes helicopters. One of our helicopters has wood in it... it was designed in 1950.

today, entire production aircraft are composite... like it's always been in the past, aerospace technology eventually works it's way down to other industries.

the only reason only SOME manufacturers have switched to NO-WOOD construction is simple: COST.

composites take more knowledge, design work, technical skill, and of course cost more in material. They have come a long way in the last couple decades. wood is outdated. period. If you want to cut cost and you can totally encapsulate it (not a SINGLE hole through the glass), then it is merely ACCEPTABLE.

this is starting to sound like the old carbeurated vs EFI discussion, those guys thought old technology was better too back then, but there is not too many of those dudes left today. yeah, columbus did the atlantic in a wood boat. means nothing now, it's time to move on.

it's been done... it only takes money. intrepid has had wood-free models since the early 80's... they're still not rotten.

[foca]

PAR,

there is a SOLID mechanical bond. it was scratched and cleaned COMPLETELY before the pour. Before doing anything i took samples of the existing glass and did bench tests for bonding to be sure. trust me, it is more solid than if i was trying to bond to wood. if you did a tensile strength test, you'd have to pull harder to get the glass off of the seacast.

since we are talking shear though, I have seen no evidence of problems YET. not through bench testing and not in the boat application. I took the tank lid off and inspected the two main stringers a couple months ago, no signs of delamination.

Bear in mind however, this boat was also structurally enforced with Epoxy layups after all the poly work was completed. there are more loads now with the bracket and twins, but the load paths have been looked at and reinforced (that may be better OR worse for the seacast bond... we'll see).

SO FAR, i have complete confidence. Tried and true is great, but it didn't get us to the moon. If we have better tools today, why not use them. I think the risk is minimal at this point, as long as you are smart about it.

[mark775]

Two of the testimonials look fishy. Foca, you just have no idea of what you are talking. Good luck with your "flexible flyer"!
34596

[foca]

Two of the testimonials look fishy. Foca, you just have no idea of what you are talking. Good luck with your "flexible flyer"!
34596

"fishy"...OK.

good luck with your rotten (or rotting) boat(s).