: The simple numbers of boats that are not built in this fashion.

: The fact that the material and techniques "appear" to be
: so exotic that otherwise competent builders shy away from the
: process.

: .... and to a lesser degree, but still present, the business of the
: kayak building community and the oft expressed comments as to
: how wood is better, foam cored boats are not as light, that the
: foam build methedology is complex and fraught with
: "issues", etc.

: The whole thing adds-up to guys wanting to play it safe and taking
: the path more frequented.

: That's what makes me believe that builders are initmidated.

: Perhaps you think otherwise? If so, I'd like to know of your take,
: Bill, as I respect your experience and all-around grasp of the
: boat building process.

: Chris O

Hi Chris,
Nah, tisn't the "exotic-ness" of CF, tis the cost. Technique is pretty much the same for CF as FG, so it's not a scary material.
The question would be; is it fit for purpose?
This includes cost as well as any mechanical properties, appearance, etc.
The same question works with foam core materials.
What do you want from the material?
If light weight is the primary target, foam core and CF would be the way to go.
Good impact resistance can also possible with foam cores using higher densities, with some weight penalty. But these foams are expensive.
If minimising cost is the primary, wood is the best bet. It loses to foam in weight but it is cheap. Wood, after all, does grow on trees. :D
When you throw appearance into the decision, timber and glass comes out ahead.
Though CF does look slick over anything.

Mike Savage
South West Cork