Greg:
Thanks for your input. You are absolutely right!
+/- 1/2 " at the stations would certainly be loose enough that one
could build with paper templates if Bram wants to stick with paper templates
and
allow only a select few CNC builders.
The tolerance could stay as is for CNC boats and be changed to +/-
1/2" for non-CNC boats.
WHAT DO YOU THINK BRAM?
Eldon
Subj: RE: Reasons For Proposed Amendment to Class Rules
Date: 11/26/2003 11:34:55 AM Central Standard Time
From: StricG@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Strickland)
To: swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In that CNC offers superior capability, I think that the only problem would
be with people altering the CNC file to hug the edges of the tolerances in
areas that might prove beneficial. CNC is quite capable of this. For this
reason
there may be some merit for the CNC builders to be held to a tighter
tolerance. What are the tolerances placed on Ovington, Vanguard and other
professional builders of the 49er?
In any event everyone should be able to hold the boat to +/- 1/2" at the
stations regardless of the technology they employ. The major benefit of the
CNC
is time savings. Time is the killer for production outfits that are looking to
offer the boat to people who are not able or don't want to build. Anything
that can be done to reduce cycle time without sacrificing quality will improve
their ability to produce a boat that will be profitable for them and
reasonably priced for those who are looking to buy.
On a personal note I have to say that I'm disappointed with the negative
energy that's swelled in the last handful of days. Clearly Bram is handling an
enormous task and is doing everything he can to make this a rewarding project
for everyone. Hopefully issues like "5 mm is not 1/4 (25%) of an inch. 5mm
(5/25.4 = .19969) is 19.7% of an inch--13.5% less than the 1/4" tolerance Bram
claims exists. Even 6 mm is not 1/4" (25%) of an inch. 6 mm (6/25.4 = .2362)
is
23.6% of an inch" aren't a foreshadowing of unbearable regattas. Hopefully
the spirit of the Swift Solo will be more like the 505 and less like the
49er...
Greg Strickland
505 - Bb - 4768
49er Crew and Swift Solo hopeful, waiting for a builder... hopefully the VMG
report isn't being delayed too badly by the email exchanges.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harveynestor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [SMTP:Harveynestor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:11 AM
> To: swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Reasons For Proposed Amendment to Class Rules
>
> Fellow Swift Solo Sailors:
>
> As many of you know, I have proposed that our class rules should be written
such that either:
> (a) boats built with the use of CNC technology should be prohibited
or
> (b) alternatively, some different measurement rules should be used
for boats built without the use of CNC machinery.
>
> These are the reasons why I have made this proposal:
>
> 1. Bram has not provided us with plans to build our Swift Solos.
>
> Plans are lines drawings that show a hull in three views--profile
view, plan view, and body plan view. They are typically provided on mylar
that
does not change shape with temperature and humidity or else as CAD files.
These drawings enable a builder to check his measurements as he progresses with
the construction of his boat. Without plans we cannot check our
measurements as we build our boats.
>
> 2. In lieu of plans, Bram has provided us with station templates printed
on paper.
>
> Station templates are typically made by either (a) drawing plans out
full size and taking measurements from them or (b) a computer process if a
CAD file is used.
>
> The paper templates provided by Bram are subject to changes in both
size and shape as a result of humidity and temperature changes. The paper
templates are also subjected to some moisture when they are glued down to cut
out the mold stations and will ultimately produce construction problems such
as:
>
> (a) the mold stations are not the precise size and shape that
they should be
> (b) the mold stations are not perfectly aligned,
> (c) the jig is not fair
>
>
>
> 3. Any errors resulting from the use of paper templates will produce a
jig that is not fair.
>
> The only ways to fair a hull built on an unfair jig: >
> (a) fair the hull before glassing,
> (b) fair the hull after glassing by building up low spots
with fairing compound,
> (c) some combination of (a) and (b).
>
>
> (a) Fairing the hull before glassing reduces the core thickness and
weakens the hull.
>
> Western Red Cedar is a very high density core material, and its
weight and the class rules prohibit using a core thickness greater than 1/4".
Sanding an already thin core material reduces stiffness that is obtained
through panel thickness.
>
> (b) Fairing the hull after glassing by building up low spots with
fairing compound adds otherwise useless weight to the boat.
>
> Large amounts of fairing compound increase the weight of the hull
needlessly. This weight could be better used to strengthen the hull.
>
> 4. A boat built from a jig constructed from paper moistened with glue and
then cut by hand with a jig-saw pales in comparison with a boat built from a
jig cut with CNC machinery.
>
> A blind man with a CAD file and CNC machinery could produce a jig far
superior to one produced by a skilled craftsman with 20/20 vision using
moistened paper as his pattern and cutting the wood with a hand-held jig-saw.
>
> www.fabricam.com has a very good picture of a CNC router table. Can
your glued paper mold stations and jig-saw compete with this equipment
available to Patrick Owen and John Vinkemuhler of VMG Skiffs?
>
> 5. Bram claims that the use of CNC machinery to produce bulkheads, mold
stations, transoms, and misc. would be a service to the class, and to deny the
use of CNC machinery would be a disservice to the class.
>
> Would it not be a better service to the class to level the playing
field by either (a) allowing ALL builders to use CNC machinery, provide them
with the mylar templates, CAD files, etc. or else (b) not allow the use of CNC
machinery by any individual or certified builder.
>
> 6. The use of CNC machinery by certified builders only starts the class
down the slippery slope of a class dominated by certified builders.
>
> This would move the building process one step at a time out of the
hands of class members and pave the way to allowing design and construction
changes that could obsolete hand crafted boats.
>
>
> 7. Bram touts his concern with fairness and foiling "cheaters" who might
try to gain an unfair advantage by altering his design.
>
> Bram apparently fears that there are some or many among those
approximately 50 constituting the Swift Solo class building their own boats who
would
use "builder error" as a cover for redesigning his Swift Solo and thus build
a more competitive boat.
> Fairness dictates that the approximately 50 people who have
purchased plans at the cost of $575.00 should be allowed to build competitive
boats
that are equal to those built by his certified builders.
>
>
> 8. The unfair advantage definitely goes to the certified builders who are
allowed to use CNC machinery.
>
> We, as individual builders who are denied plans and/or measurement
templates with which to check our hand crafted boats cannot hope to achieve the
precision and accuracy of computer driven machinery. Bram's subjective test
of allowable "builder error" might force sailors who would otherwise build
their own boats to purchase boats from his certified builders at several times
the cost of building their own boats, thus destroying an aspect of the class
that first attracted us to it; otherwise, why else would we have paid $575.00
for
a set of plans (which we have not yet received)?
>
>
> Alternatively,
>
> #1. If the class feels that CNC capabilities should be allowed,
then CAD files of the plans should be provided to ALL builders who have paid
for plans, not just to Bram's certified builders, >
>
>
>
> OR ELSE
>
>
>
> #2. > Differen> t rules should be used to measure the dimensions of
non-CNC boats so they can be as well built as their CNC counterparts through
fairing of the jigs upon which they are constructed before they are built.
>
>
>
>
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer.
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <swiftsolo-return-145-Harveynestor=wmconnect.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from rly-xk06.mx.aol.com (rly-xk06.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.44]) by
air-xk03.mail.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXK32-72f3fc4e42a67; Wed,
26 Nov 2003 12:34:55 -0500
Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [168.75.98.6]) by
rly-xk06.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXK61-72f3fc4e42a67; Wed,
26 Nov 2003 12:34:34 -0500
Received: (qmail 11771 invoked by uid 636); 26 Nov 2003 17:27:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact swiftsolo-help@xxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Help: <mailto:swiftsolo-help@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:swiftsolo-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:swiftsolo-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-To: mailing list swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: (qmail 11758 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 17:27:05 -0000
Message-ID: <0E50F5CA5D27BA488E513211675A23BBCFEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Greg Strickland <StricG@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Reasons For Proposed Amendment to Class Rules
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:26:53 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-AOL-IP: 168.75.98.6
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0
|