Eldon,
I don't know why you have chosen to pursue this course of action and frankly
I don't care. As a bottom line I think it's time you moved on. You have
managed to piss off folks from all corners of the globe and I for one am
sick and tired of it. As for your measurement issues I wouldn't worry about
it because I doubt any of us would condescend to sharing a race course with
you. I know that I would much rather pack up a boat and drive home than
deal with your whining any further. Like Gerry I would also support a
refund of your deposit and will put my money where my mouth is and offer to
split the cost of it with the group. There are far too many good people in
this group to have the class poisoned like this.
Regards,
Jeff Bodkin
-----Original Message-----
From: CedarOnly [mailto:glavery@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 2:31 PM
To: Harveynestor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Measurement Problems and Solutions
Eldon,
I have been patiently and impartially following the discourse over the past
week. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and to a voice, but you have
crossed a line in this latest e-mail. I would fully support Bram if he were
to return your fees and cancel your memberships (if it is within his
powers).
Gerry Lavery
----- Original Message -----
From: Harveynestor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Harveynestor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:swiftsolo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Measurement Problems and Solutions
Greg Ryan reports that the maximum width (tip to tip at the bottom of
the gunwale) of his section 10 template is 73 & 29/32 inches or 1876 mm.
My station 10 is 73 and 15/16 inches or 1878 mm.
Rob reports that his station 10 is also 73 and 15/16 inches.
The classs rules state, "the beam at the widest point shall be a
maximum of 1.934 m.
Bram says that station 10 should be 74 inches at the widest point, and
the beam will be about 2 inches wider than that because by the time you
extend the gunwale down below the tip of the station the proper amount, the
boat becomes the correct width less 1/4 inch for builder error.
Presumably then the correct width is the width specified in the maximum
beam rule minus the 6 mm tolerance. So, if we subtract the 6 mm (1/4 inch)
for builder error from the 1934 mm maximum width, we find that the designed
width is 1928 mm. If we subtract 6 mm for builder error from 1928 mm, we
get 1922 mm as the minimum width within the tolerances.
I stapled one 1/4 inch thick strip to the outmost part of the topsides
on each side of station 10 of my jig, and 1/4 inch strips two layers thick
to each gunwale at stations 9, 10, and 11 so that the strips on the gunwale
formed a flush continuation of the strips on the topsides.
The widest point when I did this was at station 10 (the widest station)
because as the strips on the gunwales of the jig were bent inward towards
stations 9 and 11, they moved closer to the centerline. I then measured
across station 10 right up against each side of station 10, and the
measurement I got is 75 and 5/16 inches or 1913 mm, an increase of 35 mm.
In the case of Greg Ryan's jig, the measurement should be about 1911
mm, assuming an increase of 35 mm for planking the gunwales so that they
form a flush continuation of the topsides. Assuming the class minimum is
1922 mm, that means Greg needs 5.5 mm of glass and resin on each side to
come up to the class minimum and I need 4.5 mm of glass and resin.
When I look at a ruler it seems to me that 2 mm is sufficient for the
amount of glass needed on the gunwale, and no question 2 1/2 mm is
sufficient. 3 mm looks like an awful lot and 4 mm looks unquestionably
unnecessary. 4.5 and 5.5 mm look utterly ridiculous.
Sorry Greg, but it looks to me like your boat is definitely out! You
cheater! Unless, of course, you start gooping and globbing fairing compound
to make up the difference. And let's hope (hee, hee, hee) your boat is not
below the tolerance over any large areas of its hull and by even more.
Otherwise you are going to have to pile an awful lot of fairing compound
onto your boat.
If your boat is too large in places, of course you can sand them down;
possibly through the glass and into the core. By the time you fix that thing
so it measures in it may be a worthless piece of crap. Hey, why didn't you
buy CNC in the first place? You dunce! What kind of doctor are you anyway?
Don't you know an unlevel playing field when you see one? What kind of fool
are you to have bought those plans?
Of course, I do not mean to be a name calling, finger pointing, mean
spirited bickerer, but I do want to get a point across and obtain a solution
for myself and others who may be in the same situation in which Greg Ryan
and I find ourselves. And now, early on, is the best time to do that while
things are still relatively easy to fix.
Converting 74 inches to metric we find that the station 10 template
should be 1880 mm at its widest point. Adding the 35 mm increase in width
from planking the gunwales down far enough to form a continuation of the
topsides, we come up with a width of 1915 mm across the gunwale topside
intersections. Adding 4 mm for 2 mm of glass and resin on each side, we get
1919 mm, 3 mm below the class minimum. Therefore, at station 10 the
template puts you 3 mm below the minimum before it shrinks. In 3 out of 3
cases it has shrunk. Twice by 1/16 inch and once by 3/32 inch.
Bram tells us, "I will be controlling who gets DXF files tightly and
those files will be held to the center of the measurement margin." So,
where in practice someone building with CNC mold stations should end up at
around 1924 mm before glassing and close to the designed 1928 mm after
glassing, someone building with templates ends up between 1913 and 1911 mm
before glassing and between 1917 and 1915 after glassing; 11 to 13 mm from
the center of the measurement margin after glassing in a class with a
tolerance of 6 mm from that center!
Admiditedly the shrinkage will not be as great at the smaller stations,
but it is there; and who knows where the templates we have place us with
regard to the tolerances in the first place?
I hate to come across as a malcontent, but from what I have seen I
could face problems come measurement time, and through no fault of my own.
Bram, you told Paul, "Don't have any fears of screwing up a station or
two. It has already happened at least once and I will send you a
replacement at no charge (except shipping)."
Bram, I would like you to send me another complete set of templates,
and I would like to pay you the cost of having them produced and shipped to
me. Will you do that assuming you have been paid?
I will glue the templates to mylar, draw new lines outside of the
existing ones to increase their size by the hull thickness, and carefully
cut along the new lines thus formed.
I will bring these station templates and bottom templates with me when
my boat is being measured to demonstrate that I have built according to the
templates. I feel that then, if my boat does not measure in, I have a good
case that it should be given a measurement certificate anyway. Wouldn't you
agree?
Since we are to be ignorant of the designed dimensions of the boat we
are building to tolerances, I think this is the best someone without the CNC
produced mold stations that will be right "to the center of the measurement
margin" can do.
Bram, do you think my measurements and/or calculations, are faulty?
Bram, is my understanding correct that the maximum width of 1934 mm
minus the 6 mm tolerance equals the designed width of 1928 mm, and 1928 mm
minus the 6 mm tolerance equals a 1922 mm minimum width?
Bram, are there any flaws to my reasoning?
Bram, do you find this an acceptable solution for someone facing a
potential measurement problem through no fault of their own? Worst, or
maybe best, case I would just be doing unnecessary work and spending some
money needlessly.
Please let me know.
Thank you in advance for the courtesy of a response.
Eldon
|