Cold-Molding with Wood
Versus Sheathing With Fiberglass
0
ne question that often comes up is:
“Wouldn’t it be easier, cheaper, and just as
good to sheath with fiberglass?” The fol-
lowing is a commentary on the glassing procedure
and why I chose not to use it.
There are many cases where fiberglass coverings
on wooden hulls, both old and new, have cracked or
peeled off. Besides long-term sealing, there is also a
question of how much strength is added to an old
hull. The technique developed by Allan Vaitses and
well-detailed in his book Coveting Wooden Boats Wifh
Fiberglass, involves using more layers of glass and
applying the thickest practical covering over the
wood. Rather than using glass cloth, which has long
been considered the standard material for covering
wood, Vaitses uses chopped-strand mat because of
its superior adhesion, resistance to peeling, and wa-
tertight integrity. And, most importantly, he always
fastens the glass covering mechanically to the wood
hull with heavy galvanized staples. The Vaitses
 In the final analysis, the decision was easy (for me): The cost and labor fac-
tors would be comparable; cold-molding would be stronger, lighter and less
likely to separate from the old hull.. .and.. .a wood freak would be much more
at ease with a sheathing made from trees rather than from petroleum.
system involves: (1) a covering system of fiberglass
over wood that is thick enough to withstand both
abuse on the outside, and movement of the wood be-
neath; (2) a covering system that is watertight; and
(3) a covering system that does not necessarily de-
pend on chemical adhesion to the wood to remain
securely fastened to the old hull.
Vaitses reports that in 15 years he has covered 50
boats, and no job that has been done with strict ad-
herence to these precepts has failed. Relative to
longevity, he thinks this system may share the in-
definite life expectancy that both fiberglass and
wood have when used properly and individually.
The thicker the fiberglass covering, the more
strength it will add to the boat.
Initially he used as much fiberglass as a solid fi-
berglass hull of the same size would have. That way,
no matter how weak the old hull structure was, all
those strakes of planking, frames, backbone mem-
bers, deck beams, decking and bulkheads were rein-
forcing the new fiberglass covering. The old struc-
ture of a wooden hull, however, can only strengthen
a new covering as long as they are fastened together.
So Vaitses began to reduce the amount of fiberglass
enough to allow for the considerable strength and
stiffness remaining in the old wooden structure. His
criterion is to use a covering thick enough to keep
any movement of the old hull from overpowering
the new fiberglass laminate, and utilizing added
thickness in certain critical spots.
Weight Factor
One square foot of fiberglass l/&inch thick, with a
proper glass/resin ratio, weighs one pound. There-
fore, for a boat with 600 square feet of hull surface, a
covering l/8-inch thick will weigh 600 pounds, l/4-
inch thick would be 1200 pounds, and so on, If the
wooden hull is sound, a l/&inch thick laminate
should seal out water. If the hull is tired or sick (fas-
tenings, wood, structure), then a thicker covering
will be required; sometimes 3/&inch to l/2-inch is
necessary for desired strength and stiffness, de-
pending on size and degree of hull deterioration.
Cost Factor
The primary fiberglass sheathing materials (mat,
woven roving, and polyester resin) cost about $1.25
per pound. The primary cold-molding materials
(wood and epoxy resin) cost about $3.30 per pound.
More pounds, however, are required on a fiberglass
L
job; a 3/8-inch glass covering on a 600 square foot
hull would be 1800 pounds of primary material at a
cost of $2,250. A 3/8-inch cold-mold laminate would
weigh 600 pounds and cost $2,000. So material costs
seem to be comparable.
On a labor basis, Vaitses reports that two experi-
enced men will average about two days (four man-
days) to put on four layers of fiberglass totaling l/8-
inch thickness on one side of a hull that has about 250
square feet of surface per side. A third man will need
about half a day to mechanically fasten (staple) this
skin to the old wood hull using a power tool. These
figures are about the same as I experienced on the
wood-lamination phase on Tumbleweed (four man-
days per l/8-inch layer per 300 square feet). A bit
more time is required for puttying cold-molded
seams. Final surface finishing labor should be about
the same for both procedures.
I also think the initial hull preparation (Phase 1)
would be about the same (wooding back, seam
routing and filling, and drying out), but, according
to Vaitses, his procedure is just to scrape off any
loose paint and start glassing (meaning wooding
back, seam filling, and drying are not necessary). Yet
an important part of this phase is drying out the old
hull: (1) to get the hull to a stable condition so that it
is better able to accept the new skin; (2) to increase
the strength of the old hull-a 30-percent to 50-
percent increase in wood strength can be obtained
by reducing the moisture content from 25 percent to
15 percent; (3) to decrease hull weight by water loss;
and (4) to minimize the possibility of any future rot.
I question his Phase 1 procedure as cutting some im-
portant corners and diminishing the strength and
integrity of what could be a really proper job.
One of the options I considered for Tumbkweed
was to sheath the hull with fiberglass using a modi-
fied Vaitses procedure: a full Phase 1 hull prepara-
tion for a strong, stiff, dry, and old wooden structure;
then a Phase 2 glass mat laminate with plenty of
mechanical fasteners, but using epoxy resin rather
than polyester for better adhesion and strength.
In the final analysis, the decision was easy (for
me): The cost and labor factors would be compa-
rable; cold-molding would be stronger, lighter and
less likely to separate from the old hull. It is essen-
tially more compatible to put wood on wood, and
perhaps most important of all, a wood freak would
be much more at ease with a sheathing made from
trees rather than from petroleum. n