All,
I am watching and waiting during this time before making a final decision as
to whether or not I want to invest time and money into something so unique.
I also understand that it is evolving. There are folks like Eldon
everywhere. I am patient and feel that this fine boat and the vast majority
of the people involved are worth being a part of. Long live the Corinthian
spirit!
Mike Lamb
On 11/28/03 3:03 PM, "JeffBodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<JeffBodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>>> To: 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
|