Boxerworks.com

Nah, they're solid foam. Bing used to make hollow black plastic alcohol proof floats awhile back, but ceased production for some unknown reason.

Think I'll go with the shaving first. A little off the sides for starters

Interesting, given my vehement dislike for shaving.

Primate wrote:. . . are these things hollow? Because if they are, just for the hell of it, what would happen if I shaved a bit off the sides or drilled some holes in the heavy one to lighten it? If it's hollow, the result would be obvious, but if it's hollow . . .

I'll do some experimenting when the new one comes in.

I've taken quite a few broken things apart in my time, just for the hell of it and usually after Ive already replaced it. And sometimes I've found a fixable problem and ended up with a "spare. So I say go ahead. In this case I think the floats are made of "solid" gasoline resistant foam. And likely that would mean non ethanol laced gasoline. I'm not sure but I think I heard that Bing makes floats compatible with ethanol gas, but I may be thinking of some two piece aviation floats that I've read about. A visit to the Bing site might be illuminating.

As an aside, the Bing site has, or used to have, a schematic diagram of our carbs. That diagram is very useful for cleaning the various passageways in the carb since you can figure out where each passageway goes. (And with the carb in hand and looking at the casting moldings and plugs you can figure out the drilling patterns for the passageways.)

But back to your floats. If they are solid, as I think, shaving the floats or drilling holes in them won't do any good because you'll be removing "floatation" as you remove material. (Unless you can manage to remove the material above the "waterline". But even then thee will still be "waves" and buoyancy would still be compromised to some degree.)

As another side, the term "gasoline resistant" makes me think about what Lily Tomlin said about shrink resistant socks. "It means that they will shrink, but they really don't want to."


Ken

Save yourself some grief and riding time, and replace both floats at the same time. If they're both golden brown, they're both bound to be toast shortly.

Ken in Oklahoma wrote:But back to your floats. If they are solid, as I think, shaving the floats or drilling holes in them won't do any good because you'll be removing "floatation" as you remove material. (Unless you can manage to remove the material above the "waterline". But even then thee will still be "waves" and buoyancy would still be compromised to some degree.

Ken

I got to thinking about all that Ken, about why or how it wouldn't work. Not knowing about physics, I was guessing something about reduced volume, maybe density or displacement would come into play. Also loose fragments could cause all kinds of fun in there. But I'll go ahead and try and see what I come up with on this little fact finding experiment. But not until the new one comes in.

Primate wrote:

Ken in Oklahoma wrote:But back to your floats. If they are solid, as I think, shaving the floats or drilling holes in them won't do any good because you'll be removing "floatation" as you remove material. (Unless you can manage to remove the material above the "waterline". But even then thee will still be "waves" and buoyancy would still be compromised to some degree.

Ken

I got to thinking about all that Ken, about why or how it wouldn't work. Not knowing about physics, I was guessing something about reduced volume, maybe density (?) would come into play. Also loose fragments could cause all kinds of fun in there. But I'll go ahead and try and see what I come up with on this little fact finding experiment. But not until the new one comes in.

Nothing to do with "density" really, but volume: yes. It's about why things float. They do not float because they are light (this would make it impossible for battleships and cruise liners to float), they float because they weigh less than the water they displace.

Major Softie wrote: Nothing to do with "density" really, but volume: yes. It's about why things float. They do not float because they are light (this would make it impossible for battleships and cruise liners to float), they float because they weigh less than the water they displace.

Major, you didn't say exactly what you meant. A battleship weighs exactly the weight of the water it displaces. If something were to push down on the battleship then it would displace more water weight than it weighs.


Ken

Ken in Oklahoma wrote:

Major Softie wrote: Nothing to do with "density" really, but volume: yes. It's about why things float. They do not float because they are light (this would make it impossible for battleships and cruise liners to float), they float because they weigh less than the water they displace.

Major, you didn't say exactly what you meant. A battleship weighs exactly the weight of the water it displaces. If something were to push down on the battleship then it would displace more water weight than it weighs.


Ken

Thank you, you are right of course. BUT, even though your correction is "correct," a battleship actually does weigh less than the water it displaces . . . as soon as someone steps on the ship.

I actually meant to say (or should have said) that it must weigh less than the amount of water it can displace. I guess a submarine or scuba diver can sometimes weigh exactly the same as the amount of water they can displace.

Major Softie wrote: Thank you, you are right of course. BUT, even though your correction is "correct," a battleship actually does weigh less than the water it displaces . . . as soon as someone steps on the ship.

I actually meant to say (or should have said) that it must weigh less than the amount of water it can displace.

Ah! That was an excellent nit you just now picked. My hat is off to you.


Ken

Ken in Oklahoma wrote:

Major Softie wrote: Thank you, you are right of course. BUT, even though your correction is "correct," a battleship actually does weigh less than the water it displaces . . . as soon as someone steps on the ship.

I actually meant to say (or should have said) that it must weigh less than the amount of water it can displace.

Ah! That was an excellent nit you just now picked. My hat is off to you.


Ken

Thank you, but you'll see that I actually improved the picking of my nit as you were posting.