Hand Layup or Vacuum

Hey guys,

Curious what your thoughts would be on theoretically the same canoe - all Kevlar, foam core, epoxy - constructed via a hand layup compared to one of the vacuum processes. In two canoes very close in design otherwise would there be significant advantages or disadvantages in one build technique compared to the other (after it’s built)? Thanks!

I believe the vacuum method gives a better cloth to resin ratio and hence I bit lighter weight in the end. But for one or two boats the setup is quite an investment.
Jim

Isn’t vacuum also for anaerobic cured resins?

It has been my experience that those builders that still layup by hand experience a wide variation in weight (some only publish an 'average' weight but are typically over spec). They also sometimes exhibit things like wrinkles and thread pulls from working the resin into the cloth. All cosmetic, yes, but when compared to the more consistent process of infusion like Swift and Placid, it's hard not to notice the difference when you are investing the funds a high-end boat commands.

Thanks, I can see the vacuum process offering more consistency on specifications and looks, although I have heard you can possibly remove more excess resin by hand thus lowering the weight?

Would one method offer more durability and longevity compared to the other?

I'd like to understand the different vacuum methods. When I looked at Swift and Northstar canoes side by side at an outfitter the difference was stark. The Swifts were perfectly smooth and flawless. The Northstars varied from boat to boat but they all had ugly folds in the interior. One Northstar Firebird had so many folds the factory should have been embarrassed to offer it for sale. I know they don't effect utility, but they were pretty awful looking.

PaddleTime said:

Thanks, I can see the vacuum process offering more consistency on specifications and looks, although I have heard you can possibly remove more excess resin by hand thus lowering the weight?

Would one method offer more durability and longevity compared to the other?

Click to expand...

It would be hard to prove without data, but from a former Quality/Reliability Engineer, I believe that a controlled, repeatable process translates into a better product overall. A little tidbit from Stan at Slipstream Watercraft on infusion:

Punkinhead said:

I'd like to understand the different vacuum methods. When I looked at Swift and Northstar canoes side by side at an outfitter the difference was stark. The Swifts were perfectly smooth and flawless. The Northstars varied from boat to boat but they all had ugly folds in the interior. One Northstar Firebird had so many folds the factory should have been embarrassed to offer it for sale. I know they don't effect utility, but they were pretty awful looking.

Click to expand...

Lotsa videos on You-Tube, Wenonah and Swift describing bag and infusion methods. I have several issues with Northstar that seem to invite heavy blowback from their fans (especially the transverse mold seam on the solos), but the cosmetics belie other design choices that I disagree with.

I have a hand-laid canoe and love it. Any blemishes remind me of the intensely personal relationship between the product and the maker... seems more like a unique sculpture vs a mass-cast bronze reproduction. 22lbs, with real wood trim, is light enough for me.

Others may prefer otherwise, and that's ok too... the important thing is that we get out and paddle.

Seeker said:

I have a hand-laid canoe and love it. Any blemishes remind me of the intensely personal relationship between the product and the maker... seems more like a unique sculpture vs a mass-cast bronze reproduction. 22lbs, with real wood trim, is light enough for me.

Others may prefer otherwise, and that's ok too... the important thing is that we get out and paddle.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right; it is an entirely subjective decision. I am sadly cursed with OCD and every blemish jumps right out at me. I did acquire a Hornbeck Classic a few years ago, hand laid, of course, and was stunned at the quality of it; zero wrinkles, pulls or voids. The partials were neatly cut and laid with a precision I had not seen in other Hornbecks. Each builder scratches his initials below the gunnels, and I was so impressed with his work I felt compelled to give him a well-deserved shout-out on their Facebook page. To me, that is true artistry. On the flip side, I took delivery of a hand laid $3000 solo (some years ago) that was full of wrinkles with partials that appeared to have been cut with a hatchet and placed haphazardly. The inside blanket was two pieces that left a seam just behind the seat. The gelcoat was so thin in spots that the hull was partially translucent and she came in 4.5 pounds over spec. Two ends of the spectrum.

Sounding like aesthetics and possibly being over specs on weight are the main concerns. Aesthetics would probably bother me upon receipt but not after some use. Weight and or durability would be bigger concerns.

Vacuum bagging usually gives a more consistent product and uses less resin and should weight less. The guys at Merrimack now vacuum bag a line of canoes called Grey Duck and I know they have vacuumed at least one of their hand lay up models and it was a few pounds lighter. On an environmental side there is A LOT of plastic waste for every canoe/kayak/paddleboard that is produced using vacuum bagging.

BWCA66 said:

On an environmental side there is A LOT of plastic waste for every canoe/kayak/paddleboard that is produced using vacuum bagging.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know how that shakes out in the long run. I feel guilty about all the waste whenever I vacuum bag or peel ply something but, on the other hand, if vacuum bagging or infusing a hull saves 3-5 pounds of resin then maybe there is actually less waste in the grand scheme of things.

Alan

both are better

gumpus said:

On the other hand the hand lay-ups from Dave Curtis are consistent, aesthetically excellent, lightweight because he can put fabric where it is most needed, and let him build a boat with no foam core which greatly reduces the chance of puncture damage. I bought one canoe from a guy that was selling it so he could get a Hemlock with no foam core because he wanted more peace of mind for his annual trip to Canada. I've owned 4 Hemlocks and all were as near perfect as any boat I've owned and all were spot-on to their target weight.

Click to expand...

A glowing recommendation, for sure. I only wish my experience with Dave was as positive. Aesthetic quality is truly a subjective measure.

I tend to cut boat builders some slack. It's not a precision manufacturing process so there are bound to be imperfections that show up, especially with a skin coat build. I own (or owned) canoes made by Wenonah, Clipper, Curtis, Hemlock, Northstar, and Swift and none of them are/were perfect. Sure, some have more blemishes than others but they all function as designed and I just ignore the imperfections and look at each canoe as a unique individual. I have a very noticeably blemished Hemlock Kestrel (bad batch of epoxy that didn’t release properly) that was steeply discounted. Needless to say it isn't a perfect build and looks it, but it performs as if it was flawless.

As for layup/build techniques, I think a well-made hand layup without foam cores/ribs is about as durable as it gets; the small amount of extra resin might even add to the strength of the layup. On the other hand, Swift's new resin coat build is very lightweight and seems pretty tough.

If perfection is a critical element of purchasing a canoe I would first inspect any boat I was going to purchase and wait until the perfect canoe comes along. Or agree to pay a premium to have someone build a perfect canoe.