Hull Flexing
 

Welcome back, Peter. How were the elephant seals? (present
company excluded of course)
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Hull Flexing
 

But the boat is not solid steel is it?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Actually quite a few sailboats *are* much more rigid than you seem to
know. You're taking your experience on plastic boats and assuming it is
generally applicable. The flex in a steel or ferrocement hull is
certainly there (everything flexes to some degree), but it's a fraction
of what is common in lightweight toy racing boats which are built to
minimal standards of seaworthiness and do, indeed, flex. In fact, the
toy boats often break when coming off a fairly moderate wave, as recent
Sydney-Hobart races have shown so well.

The remark about water being much less compressible than the boat is
pure & utter bull****. Even frozen water is a lot more compressible
than steel. Also has lower shear strength, tensile strength etc.

As to measurement of a boat to 0.005", I can easily believe that this
is possible. It's not even all that difficult. Whether there's any
point and whether the measurement is repeatable are different issues.

Peter Wiley

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


That boats are built differently has nothing to do with it. Sail boats
are not rigid nor even near it. To be as rigid as you suggest would
probably mean they would not float. If you had ever been in a real boat
beating to windward your would know they are *not* rigid. Put your hand
on the forstay and look at it unloading when she buries her bow and look
at it going tight on the crest (that's revealed by the luff bending).
It's loading up/unloading because the boat is flexing. If you ever get
the chance (assuming that any boat owner could put up with your big
mouth and BS) have a good hard look at the hull of a boat pounding hard
to windward and look and feel hull panels flexing. The boat needs has to
flex to reduce impact loadings because water is much less compressable
than the boat. Once again you reveal your lack of experience with big
boats by suggesting otherwise. This typifies your inability to grasp
even simple ideas.

As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then tell
me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature cycle.
Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat? Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use -as there would be no point
in such an accurate measurement) it would still be hard. If you think
it's so easy how come you need a 'crew'. Lets face it this is yet more
Doug Kig (I'm a ****ing hero) BS. Have'nt you ever wonder why you don't
make more money -after all, you are such an expert...

My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has more
than 1 ton rig tension.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:



I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid


Oh yeah, and all boats are built to the same structural standard, aren't
they.



and it's hard to
measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects.


Now that is total BS. It costs, but if you're willing to pay, I'll bring a
crew and and gear, and show you how to measure movement in any axis on
objects of any size & orientation down to 5 ten thousands +/- 1

It's part of what I do for a living, thanks very much. The NIST has
occasionally asked me for advice on this type of thing.




.... Even Ella has a backstay
tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.


Gee, and there's no difference between "2500#" and 15,000# is there?

Why do I bother answering your posts?

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Yes, repeatability is the whole issue. Since you agree that steel and
ferro hulls flex, how much do they typically flex (sag/hog)?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Actually quite a few sailboats *are* much more rigid than you seem to
know. You're taking your experience on plastic boats and assuming it is
generally applicable. The flex in a steel or ferrocement hull is
certainly there (everything flexes to some degree), but it's a fraction
of what is common in lightweight toy racing boats which are built to
minimal standards of seaworthiness and do, indeed, flex. In fact, the
toy boats often break when coming off a fairly moderate wave, as recent
Sydney-Hobart races have shown so well.

The remark about water being much less compressible than the boat is
pure & utter bull****. Even frozen water is a lot more compressible
than steel. Also has lower shear strength, tensile strength etc.

As to measurement of a boat to 0.005", I can easily believe that this
is possible. It's not even all that difficult. Whether there's any
point and whether the measurement is repeatable are different issues.

Peter Wiley

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


That boats are built differently has nothing to do with it. Sail boats
are not rigid nor even near it. To be as rigid as you suggest would
probably mean they would not float. If you had ever been in a real boat
beating to windward your would know they are *not* rigid. Put your hand
on the forstay and look at it unloading when she buries her bow and look
at it going tight on the crest (that's revealed by the luff bending).
It's loading up/unloading because the boat is flexing. If you ever get
the chance (assuming that any boat owner could put up with your big
mouth and BS) have a good hard look at the hull of a boat pounding hard
to windward and look and feel hull panels flexing. The boat needs has to
flex to reduce impact loadings because water is much less compressable
than the boat. Once again you reveal your lack of experience with big
boats by suggesting otherwise. This typifies your inability to grasp
even simple ideas.

As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then tell
me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature cycle.
Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat? Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use -as there would be no point
in such an accurate measurement) it would still be hard. If you think
it's so easy how come you need a 'crew'. Lets face it this is yet more
Doug Kig (I'm a ****ing hero) BS. Have'nt you ever wonder why you don't
make more money -after all, you are such an expert...

My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has more
than 1 ton rig tension.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:



I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid


Oh yeah, and all boats are built to the same structural standard, aren't
they.



and it's hard to
measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects.


Now that is total BS. It costs, but if you're willing to pay, I'll bring a
crew and and gear, and show you how to measure movement in any axis on
objects of any size & orientation down to 5 ten thousands +/- 1

It's part of what I do for a living, thanks very much. The NIST has
occasionally asked me for advice on this type of thing.




.... Even Ella has a backstay
tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.


Gee, and there's no difference between "2500#" and 15,000# is there?

Why do I bother answering your posts?

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Completely & utterly impossible to say without knowing design &
construction details and doing some sort of finite element analysis
which is way beyond my technical competence. That'd only give you a
theoretical measurement anyway.

Think about it for 5 seconds, Nav. How thick is the plating? How many
longitudinals and frames and what spacing? How many welds and at what
spacing? What sort of keel? Is the deck a different material or not? Is
the shell monococque or not? Etc etc. Steel (I know little about ferro)
boats are typically a monococque construction with steel decks attached
to the hull by welding. Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.

I do know that some steel boats can be easily lifted by a couple of
eyebolts welded internally without any worries about deformation, and
others are built with their stiff, heavy keels only supported in 2
places and the plate tolerances are typically 1.5 to 2mm before
welding, to minimise possible weld distortion. They don't sag or hog as
you're using the term. Maybe a few millimeters at most.

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

Yes, repeatability is the whole issue. Since you agree that steel and
ferro hulls flex, how much do they typically flex (sag/hog)?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Actually quite a few sailboats *are* much more rigid than you seem to
know. You're taking your experience on plastic boats and assuming it is
generally applicable. The flex in a steel or ferrocement hull is
certainly there (everything flexes to some degree), but it's a fraction
of what is common in lightweight toy racing boats which are built to
minimal standards of seaworthiness and do, indeed, flex. In fact, the
toy boats often break when coming off a fairly moderate wave, as recent
Sydney-Hobart races have shown so well.

The remark about water being much less compressible than the boat is
pure & utter bull****. Even frozen water is a lot more compressible
than steel. Also has lower shear strength, tensile strength etc.

As to measurement of a boat to 0.005", I can easily believe that this
is possible. It's not even all that difficult. Whether there's any
point and whether the measurement is repeatable are different issues.

Peter Wiley

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


That boats are built differently has nothing to do with it. Sail boats
are not rigid nor even near it. To be as rigid as you suggest would
probably mean they would not float. If you had ever been in a real boat
beating to windward your would know they are *not* rigid. Put your hand
on the forstay and look at it unloading when she buries her bow and look
at it going tight on the crest (that's revealed by the luff bending).
It's loading up/unloading because the boat is flexing. If you ever get
the chance (assuming that any boat owner could put up with your big
mouth and BS) have a good hard look at the hull of a boat pounding hard
to windward and look and feel hull panels flexing. The boat needs has to
flex to reduce impact loadings because water is much less compressable
than the boat. Once again you reveal your lack of experience with big
boats by suggesting otherwise. This typifies your inability to grasp
even simple ideas.

As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then tell
me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature cycle.
Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat? Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use -as there would be no point
in such an accurate measurement) it would still be hard. If you think
it's so easy how come you need a 'crew'. Lets face it this is yet more
Doug Kig (I'm a ****ing hero) BS. Have'nt you ever wonder why you don't
make more money -after all, you are such an expert...

My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has more
than 1 ton rig tension.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:



I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid


Oh yeah, and all boats are built to the same structural standard, aren't
they.



and it's hard to
measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects.


Now that is total BS. It costs, but if you're willing to pay, I'll bring a
crew and and gear, and show you how to measure movement in any axis on
objects of any size & orientation down to 5 ten thousands +/- 1

It's part of what I do for a living, thanks very much. The NIST has
occasionally asked me for advice on this type of thing.




.... Even Ella has a backstay
tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.


Gee, and there's no difference between "2500#" and 15,000# is there?

Why do I bother answering your posts?

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Oh Yeah... that's right you always have the engine on so it's irrelevant!

CM

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| ?
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
|
| Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
|
| CM
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| | What's your point?
| |
| | Cheers MC
| |
| | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| |
| | How does that differ to her usual condition of standing by outside a
| harbour
| | with a fouled prop?
| |
| | CM
| |
| | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid and it's
hard
| to
| | | measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects. The flexability
of
| most
| | | boats is such that the side stays limit the spread of the hull
as
| the
| | | backstay is tightened (this is naval architecture 101). Current
rig
| | | tensions are much higher than they used to be. Even Ella has a
| backstay
| | | tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.
| | |
| | | Cheers MC
| | |
| | | DSK wrote:
| | |
| | | The_navigator© wrote:
| | |
| | | 4 thou. measured on the back of a boat? Complete BS.
| | |
| | |
| | | "The Captain...cap n all" wrote:
| | | I would have thought so.
| | |
| | |
| | | AFAIK there was no reason to BS about it, the boat was a one-off
| | | and paid for. If I am interpreting the article about the boat
| | | correctly, the distortion was measured at the mid length along a
| | | straight from stem to center transom.
| | |
| | | If one is installing high powered hydraulics to control the rig,
| | | it makes sense to make the hull & deck structure as rigid as
| | | possible, within reasonable weight limits. I haven't seen any
| | | figures for the distortion measured on the newest IACC boats but
| | | the early 1990s boats had very high rig loads (10K kg and up)
| | | and very little (if any) distortion.
| | |
| | | Fresh Breezes- Doug King
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|

Hull Flexing
 

Peter Wiley wrote:

Completely & utterly impossible to say without knowing design &
construction details and doing some sort of finite element analysis
which is way beyond my technical competence. That'd only give you a
theoretical measurement anyway.

But it is possible (not that difficult) to measure the hull's deflection along any
axis in the real world. Not everybody has a dial indicator handy, though.



Think about it for 5 seconds, Nav. How thick is the plating? How many
longitudinals and frames and what spacing? How many welds and at what
spacing? What sort of keel? Is the deck a different material or not? Is
the shell monococque or not? Etc etc. Steel (I know little about ferro)
boats are typically a monococque construction with steel decks attached
to the hull by welding. Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.

I disagree. Most structures are essentially the same, a box girder. Steel is
surprisingly limp all by itself. That's why they make I-beams instead of just steel
planks.

You're right that the details of the hull-deck joint are important to the boats
structure. A lot of mass-produced boats do not have a very good hull deck joint,
but others do. It is not inherent in the material.



I do know that some steel boats can be easily lifted by a couple of
eyebolts welded internally without any worries about deformation

So can many fiberglass boats. But this wasn't really an argument about the relative
merits of steel vs fiberglass, was it?


The issue isn't repeatability at all.

It is to Navvie© since his knowledge of engineering (among other things) is
limited. Besides, when you 'discuss' things with him, you have to accept his
tendency to bring up irrelevant oddities as though he were playing some kind of
trump. It's one of his more amusing character traits.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Hull Flexing
 

Peter Wiley wrote:

snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.


Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Hull Flexing
 

The navigator© wrote:

Yes, repeatability is the whole issue.

Why?

Repeatability is always an issue when measuring things, but is there some
specific reason why a boats rigidity should be uniform & consistent? To what
standard should it be?



.... Once again you reveal your lack of experience with big
boats by suggesting otherwise.

Really? Is it you that's been following me around all my life? Maybe you can
really tell me how many big boats I've sailed, I never did keep a written tally
myself.


....This typifies your inability to grasp
even simple ideas.

You mean like how to measure things?


As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then tell
me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature cycle.

Why is that an issue? BTW did you miss the thread about how much an aluminum mast
expands or contracts due to temp variation?


Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat?

Sure is. All you need is a yardstick slightly longer than the boat.

Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use

Now you're claiming you were there? How do you know what they used?


.... -as there would be no point
in such an accurate measurement) it would still be hard.

Not really, if you know how.



My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has more
than 1 ton rig tension.

Umm, Navvie©..... did you think that the terms '1-Ton' and the like refer to the
rig tension carried by the boats of this particular class?

BTW the specific boats I had in mind, which had aluminum struts forming a big
truss inside, were 'IMP' (designed by Ron Holland IIRC) and 'Ydra' (which was a
German entry in the Admirals Cup IIRC) and the Canada's Cuppers which I already
mentioned. Ben Lexcen (Bob Miller) designed at least one boat with the same type
structural elements. There were a bunch of less successful copies. A few years
later the advent of practical carbon fiber laminations made truss frames seem too
heavy.

There was also an early 1900s America's Cup contender with one.

Do you still think it's all BS? Will you never learn?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Hull Flexing
 

BTW Peter welcome back. As you can see, we've kept a boot warm for you...

DSK

Peter Wiley wrote:

Completely & utterly impossible to say without knowing design &
construction details and doing some sort of finite element analysis

Hull Flexing
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote:

Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?

Bad pun.... bad bad bad!

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

I agree. I would expect up to a couple of mm on a 40' typical steel
boat. More like 2 cm on a glass boat. By the way, Ella is far from
minimim weight she has no exotic core contruction...

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:
Completely & utterly impossible to say without knowing design &
construction details and doing some sort of finite element analysis
which is way beyond my technical competence. That'd only give you a
theoretical measurement anyway.

Think about it for 5 seconds, Nav. How thick is the plating? How many
longitudinals and frames and what spacing? How many welds and at what
spacing? What sort of keel? Is the deck a different material or not? Is
the shell monococque or not? Etc etc. Steel (I know little about ferro)
boats are typically a monococque construction with steel decks attached
to the hull by welding. Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.

I do know that some steel boats can be easily lifted by a couple of
eyebolts welded internally without any worries about deformation, and
others are built with their stiff, heavy keels only supported in 2
places and the plate tolerances are typically 1.5 to 2mm before
welding, to minimise possible weld distortion. They don't sag or hog as
you're using the term. Maybe a few millimeters at most.

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


Yes, repeatability is the whole issue. Since you agree that steel and
ferro hulls flex, how much do they typically flex (sag/hog)?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:


Actually quite a few sailboats *are* much more rigid than you seem to
know. You're taking your experience on plastic boats and assuming it is
generally applicable. The flex in a steel or ferrocement hull is
certainly there (everything flexes to some degree), but it's a fraction
of what is common in lightweight toy racing boats which are built to
minimal standards of seaworthiness and do, indeed, flex. In fact, the
toy boats often break when coming off a fairly moderate wave, as recent
Sydney-Hobart races have shown so well.

The remark about water being much less compressible than the boat is
pure & utter bull****. Even frozen water is a lot more compressible
than steel. Also has lower shear strength, tensile strength etc.

As to measurement of a boat to 0.005", I can easily believe that this
is possible. It's not even all that difficult. Whether there's any
point and whether the measurement is repeatable are different issues.

Peter Wiley

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:



That boats are built differently has nothing to do with it. Sail boats
are not rigid nor even near it. To be as rigid as you suggest would
probably mean they would not float. If you had ever been in a real boat
beating to windward your would know they are *not* rigid. Put your hand
on the forstay and look at it unloading when she buries her bow and look
at it going tight on the crest (that's revealed by the luff bending).
It's loading up/unloading because the boat is flexing. If you ever get
the chance (assuming that any boat owner could put up with your big
mouth and BS) have a good hard look at the hull of a boat pounding hard
to windward and look and feel hull panels flexing. The boat needs has to
flex to reduce impact loadings because water is much less compressable
than the boat. Once again you reveal your lack of experience with big
boats by suggesting otherwise. This typifies your inability to grasp
even simple ideas.

As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then tell
me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature cycle.
Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat? Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use -as there would be no point
in such an accurate measurement) it would still be hard. If you think
it's so easy how come you need a 'crew'. Lets face it this is yet more
Doug Kig (I'm a ****ing hero) BS. Have'nt you ever wonder why you don't
make more money -after all, you are such an expert...

My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has more
than 1 ton rig tension.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:


The navigator© wrote:




I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid


Oh yeah, and all boats are built to the same structural standard, aren't
they.




and it's hard to
measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects.


Now that is total BS. It costs, but if you're willing to pay, I'll bring a
crew and and gear, and show you how to measure movement in any axis on
objects of any size & orientation down to 5 ten thousands +/- 1

It's part of what I do for a living, thanks very much. The NIST has
occasionally asked me for advice on this type of thing.





.... Even Ella has a backstay
tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.


Gee, and there's no difference between "2500#" and 15,000# is there?

Why do I bother answering your posts?

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

I though you were talking about the angle of the fan of soldiers lined
up behind you watching your buttocks -given your recent posts. being a
gentleman I chose not to point this out.

Cheers MC

Capt. Mooron wrote:

Oh Yeah... that's right you always have the engine on so it's irrelevant!

CM

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| ?
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
|
| Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
|
| CM
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| | What's your point?
| |
| | Cheers MC
| |
| | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| |
| | How does that differ to her usual condition of standing by outside a
| harbour
| | with a fouled prop?
| |
| | CM
| |
| | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid and it's
hard
| to
| | | measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects. The flexability
of
| most
| | | boats is such that the side stays limit the spread of the hull
as
| the
| | | backstay is tightened (this is naval architecture 101). Current
rig
| | | tensions are much higher than they used to be. Even Ella has a
| backstay
| | | tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.
| | |
| | | Cheers MC
| | |
| | | DSK wrote:
| | |
| | | The_navigator© wrote:
| | |
| | | 4 thou. measured on the back of a boat? Complete BS.
| | |
| | |
| | | "The Captain...cap n all" wrote:
| | | I would have thought so.
| | |
| | |
| | | AFAIK there was no reason to BS about it, the boat was a one-off
| | | and paid for. If I am interpreting the article about the boat
| | | correctly, the distortion was measured at the mid length along a
| | | straight from stem to center transom.
| | |
| | | If one is installing high powered hydraulics to control the rig,
| | | it makes sense to make the hull & deck structure as rigid as
| | | possible, within reasonable weight limits. I haven't seen any
| | | figures for the distortion measured on the newest IACC boats but
| | | the early 1990s boats had very high rig loads (10K kg and up)
| | | and very little (if any) distortion.
| | |
| | | Fresh Breezes- Doug King
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|

Hull Flexing
 

What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC


Flying Tadpole wrote:


Peter Wiley wrote:

snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?

Hull Flexing
 

I was referring to the 'only place' comment by DSK.

Cheers MC

otnmbrd wrote:
On a tanker, Dresser couplings are used less for temperature
fluctuations, than for longitudinal flexing due to load and or working
in a seaway.
The same would apply to the flex joints that DSK was talking about.

otn

The_navigator© wrote:

They are common in engineering in an pipe system that is exposed to
wide temperatuire fluctualtions.

Cheers MC

otnmbrd wrote:

About the only place I've seen "expansion joints", is on Navy ships
(which is not to say some passenger ships might have them).
On a tanker, the only place you'll see them will be on catwalks and
in piping (G can get downright squeaky).
Tankers, being built with longitudinal framing, tend to bend more, in
that direction.

otn

DSK wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


Doesn't really matter what size the boat is, you will get some
degree of
"flex", especially when you remove it from the water and put it on a
hard stand. BG you want to see flex, you should watch and listen
to a
large tanker at sea, or watch one go from hog to sag when loading.





Sure. Why else would they build expansion joints into the upper
decks of big (or even
medium-sized) ships?

Hull Flexing
 

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


Yes, repeatability is the whole issue.


Why?

Repeatability is always an issue when measuring things,

yes that's why.


but is there some
specific reason why a boats rigidity should be uniform & consistent? To what
standard should it be?



.... Once again you reveal your lack of experience with big
boats by suggesting otherwise.


Really? Is it you that's been following me around all my life? Maybe you can
really tell me how many big boats I've sailed, I never did keep a written tally
myself.


Of course not.

....This typifies your inability to grasp
even simple ideas.


You mean like how to measure things?


As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then tell
me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature cycle.


Why is that an issue? BTW did you miss the thread about how much an aluminum mast
expands or contracts due to temp variation?


Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat?


Sure is. All you need is a yardstick slightly longer than the boat.

Yardstick. Riiiiight.


Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use


Now you're claiming you were there? How do you know what they used?


Want to put money on it? Let's email them.

.... -as there would be no point
in such an accurate measurement) it would still be hard.


Not really, if you know how.


The usual pompous DSK response that hints at knowlege where there is none.


My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has more
than 1 ton rig tension.


Umm, Navvie©..... did you think that the terms '1-Ton' and the like refer to the
rig tension carried by the boats of this particular class?

An you accuse me of introducing irrelevancies. Or are you confused as to
what a 1 ton class is? Let me guess -you think 1 ton class boats weigh 1
ton -quick off to the web and check little Doggie!


BTW the specific boats I had in mind, which had aluminum struts forming a big
truss inside, were 'IMP' (designed by Ron Holland IIRC) and 'Ydra' (which was a
German entry in the Admirals Cup IIRC) and the Canada's Cuppers which I already
mentioned. Ben Lexcen (Bob Miller) designed at least one boat with the same type
structural elements.

So now you've found out it's a truss (a truss here is not a medical
support Doug). Yes, that is correct and trusses were used quite widely.
They still are in some cases around highly loaded points.

Now, lets go back to your original statement which I said was BS. Let me
remind lest you think you've moved goal posts and escaped. You said:
"At one point FROM the late 1970s THROUGH MAYBE the late 1980s it was
fairly common to have a GEODESIC GRID of aluminium struts inside,
COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING THE CABIN."

The caps are to highlight the BS. Completely obstructing the cabin?

Bwhahhahaha. BULL**** EXPOSED.



Do you still think it's all BS? Will you never learn?

But I think you've confirmed I seem to know more about boat design and
construction than you. So what am I supposed to learn from you, the art
of BS?

Cheers MC

Hull Flexing
 

Bwhahhahahha. Run away Doggie.

Cheers MC

The_navigator© wrote:

Not one of those boats "have a geodesic grid of aluminum
struts inside, completely obstructing the cabin".

C'mon post the evidence!

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


Common? Name 20 racing boats that Can you even name one?



Sure. Most of the top One Tonners and Half Tonners between about 1977 and
1985. That's not 20, but it's more than one. Jan and Meade Gougeon
built two
Canada's Cup racers with such strut grids. When I get home and consult my
stack of old racing newsletters, I can post more names, designers,
builders,
and the competitive venues... if I deem it worth my time to continue
making
a fool of you...



You are such a BS artist.



Hardly. The problem here is that I state many truths which are outside
your
limited experience.

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Really? Can you name one?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.

Hull Flexing
 

Well, it's in harmony with its subject matter, what did you
expect?

The navigator© wrote:

What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Peter Wiley wrote:

snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?


--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Hull Flexing
 

More!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:

Well, it's in harmony with its subject matter, what did you
expect?

The navigator© wrote:

What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Peter Wiley wrote:


snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?

Hull Flexing
 

Good lord

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

Steel is
surprisingly limp all by itself.

Hull Flexing... yet another Navvie© mistake
 

The navigator© wrote:

I was referring to the 'only place' comment by DSK.

That wasn't me. You seem to have a problem keeping up.

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Usually? Good lord.

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:
Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.

Hull Flexing... yet another Navvie© mistake
 

Bwhahhahahahahaha. No wonder you've forgotten all your 'engineering'.

Cheers MC



DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:


I was referring to the 'only place' comment by DSK.


That wasn't me. You seem to have a problem keeping up.

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Well?

Cheers MC

The_navigator© wrote:

But the boat is not solid steel is it?

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Actually quite a few sailboats *are* much more rigid than you seem to
know. You're taking your experience on plastic boats and assuming it is
generally applicable. The flex in a steel or ferrocement hull is
certainly there (everything flexes to some degree), but it's a fraction
of what is common in lightweight toy racing boats which are built to
minimal standards of seaworthiness and do, indeed, flex. In fact, the
toy boats often break when coming off a fairly moderate wave, as recent
Sydney-Hobart races have shown so well.

The remark about water being much less compressible than the boat is
pure & utter bull****. Even frozen water is a lot more compressible
than steel. Also has lower shear strength, tensile strength etc.

As to measurement of a boat to 0.005", I can easily believe that this
is possible. It's not even all that difficult. Whether there's any
point and whether the measurement is repeatable are different issues.

Peter Wiley

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


That boats are built differently has nothing to do with it. Sail
boats are not rigid nor even near it. To be as rigid as you suggest
would probably mean they would not float. If you had ever been in a
real boat beating to windward your would know they are *not* rigid.
Put your hand on the forstay and look at it unloading when she buries
her bow and look at it going tight on the crest (that's revealed by
the luff bending). It's loading up/unloading because the boat is
flexing. If you ever get the chance (assuming that any boat owner
could put up with your big mouth and BS) have a good hard look at the
hull of a boat pounding hard to windward and look and feel hull
panels flexing. The boat needs has to flex to reduce impact loadings
because water is much less compressable than the boat. Once again you
reveal your lack of experience with big boats by suggesting
otherwise. This typifies your inability to grasp even simple ideas.

As for measurent of a boat to 5 thou, look at the coefficent of
expansion of say GRP or even Al (which expands muchg less) and then
tell me how much a boat moves during a typical day/night temperature
cycle. Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou
deflection over a 40' boat? Even if the boat builder had access to
interferometric equipment (which I'm sure they did not use -as there
would be no point in such an accurate measurement) it would still be
hard. If you think it's so easy how come you need a 'crew'. Lets face
it this is yet more Doug Kig (I'm a ****ing hero) BS. Have'nt you
ever wonder why you don't make more money -after all, you are such an
expert...

My point is that Ella is not a large racing boat and yet still has
more than 1 ton rig tension.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

The navigator© wrote:



I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid



Oh yeah, and all boats are built to the same structural standard,
aren't
they.



and it's hard to
measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects.



Now that is total BS. It costs, but if you're willing to pay, I'll
bring a
crew and and gear, and show you how to measure movement in any axis on
objects of any size & orientation down to 5 ten thousands +/- 1

It's part of what I do for a living, thanks very much. The NIST has
occasionally asked me for advice on this type of thing.




.... Even Ella has a backstay
tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.



Gee, and there's no difference between "2500#" and 15,000# is there?

Why do I bother answering your posts?

DSK

Hull Flexing
 

Which one?

Cheers MC

Capetanios Oz wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:59:23 +1300, The_navigator©
wrote:


Usually? Good lord.

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.



Building 22' aluminium masts with carbon fibre tapered tops, we used
Sikaflex to bond the tip to the ally. There were no mechanical
fixings.
Hounds are in the carbon so compression loads are tranferred thru the
bond.
No failures to date.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Hull Flexing
 

Repeatability is always an issue when measuring things,

The navigator© wrote:
yes that's why.

In other words, no particaluar reason. You just feel like picking nits and that's the
only one you can think of.


Really? Is it you that's been following me around all my life? Maybe you can
really tell me how many big boats I've sailed, I never did keep a written tally
myself.


Of course not.

Then why this fixation you seem to have about my sailing experience and knowledge?


Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat?


Sure is. All you need is a yardstick slightly longer than the boat.

Yardstick. Riiiiight.

And a dial indicater, which I mentioned earlier. Some duct tape would be nice, although
that might bring up hysteresis issues (what with 'repeatability' being one of your
personal bugaboos and all).





Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use


Now you're claiming you were there? How do you know what they used?


Want to put money on it? Let's email them.

Alas, they are out of business. In any event, if you were there, then you can tell us
the methodology (and why IYHO it's all wrong). If you weren't then you know less about
it than me yet want to dispute the issue. Does that sound intelligent?



Not really, if you know how.


The usual pompous DSK response that hints at knowlege where there is none.

I know how, you don't. You claim it's difficult and/or impossible, based on... umm,
your vast knowledge? This gets funnier and funnier.





Now, lets go back to your original statement which I said was BS. Let me
remind lest you think you've moved goal posts and escaped. You said:
"At one point FROM the late 1970s THROUGH MAYBE the late 1980s it was
fairly common to have a GEODESIC GRID of aluminium struts inside,
COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING THE CABIN."

The caps are to highlight the BS. Completely obstructing the cabin?

Bwhahhahaha. BULL**** EXPOSED.

I'm glad you stay up late at night worrying about this sort of nit picking. I'm sure it
keeps you out of worse trouble.

Meanwhile, what I said about the boats is true. None of it is BS, the 'trusses' (happy
again?) were a total PITA. The boats were bruisers above decks and below.




Do you still think it's all BS? Will you never learn?

But I think you've confirmed I seem to know more about boat design and
construction than you.

Yes, that's why you know so much about class rating rules, structural rigidity &
characteristics contributing to it, as well as the history of specific types of
structures in boats.

Thank you so much for making this all clear, Navvie©

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Hull Flexing
 

Bwhhahahahahhahaa.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:

Repeatability is always an issue when measuring things,

The navigator© wrote:
yes that's why.


In other words, no particaluar reason. You just feel like picking nits and that's the
only one you can think of.

You idiot. Obviously you don't make a living in precision measuremnts.

Really? Is it you that's been following me around all my life? Maybe you can
really tell me how many big boats I've sailed, I never did keep a written tally
myself.



Of course not.


Then why this fixation you seem to have about my sailing experience and knowledge?

So your imagination is reality?

Now you want to tell me it's easy to measure a 5 thou deflection over a
40' boat?


Sure is. All you need is a yardstick slightly longer than the boat.

Yardstick. Riiiiight.


And a dial indicater, which I mentioned earlier. Some duct tape would be nice, although
that might bring up hysteresis issues (what with 'repeatability' being one of your
personal bugaboos and all).


Duct tape for a precision 5 thou measurememt. Oh I can see it now! The
National standards institute call up Doug and say, we are having trouble
measuring a 40' boat to better than a thou and Doug says: You need duct
tape. Bwhahhahahahaha. You are a great engineer!



Even if the boat builder had access to interferometric
equipment (which I'm sure they did not use


Now you're claiming you were there? How do you know what they used?



Want to put money on it? Let's email them.


Alas, they are out of business. In any event, if you were there, then you can tell us
the methodology (and why IYHO it's all wrong). If you weren't then you know less about
it than me yet want to dispute the issue. Does that sound intelligent?


But you don't know anything as you've not posted a single fact. Not even
heresay really. I say again, all 40' racing boats deflect more than 5
thou with a 10,000 kg backstay tension. To even think your imagined
measurement migh be true is completely ludicrous. Go talk to a racing
boat designer.

Not really, if you know how.



The usual pompous DSK response that hints at knowlege where there is none.


I know how, you don't. You claim it's difficult and/or impossible, based on... umm,
your vast knowledge? This gets funnier and funnier.

I said it was hard. You said it was easy remember?



Now, lets go back to your original statement which I said was BS. Let me
remind lest you think you've moved goal posts and escaped. You said:
"At one point FROM the late 1970s THROUGH MAYBE the late 1980s it was
fairly common to have a GEODESIC GRID of aluminium struts inside,
COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING THE CABIN."

The caps are to highlight the BS. Completely obstructing the cabin?

Bwhahhahaha. BULL**** EXPOSED.


I'm glad you stay up late at night worrying about this sort of nit picking. I'm sure it
keeps you out of worse trouble.

Meanwhile, what I said about the boats is true. None of it is BS, the 'trusses' (happy
again?) were a total PITA. The boats were bruisers above decks and below.



"None of it is BS"? Still in denial Doggie?

Do you still think it's all BS? Will you never learn?

But I think you've confirmed I seem to know more about boat design and
construction than you.


Yes, that's why you know so much about class rating rules, structural rigidity &
characteristics contributing to it, as well as the history of specific types of
structures in boats.

I never said that, I just said you were BSing as usual -and you still
are. So now you know about yacht structural design? Did you do a course
in Naval Architecture in your imagination too? Didn't they talk about
hull deflection under rigging loads? Bwhahhahahahahaha.

Hull Flexing
 

Sikaflex.

Cheers MC

Capetanios Oz wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:15:23 +1300, The_navigator©
wrote:


Which one?

Cheers MC


Which one what?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Hull Flexing
 

That's a more!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:

You mean, you want a heroic ode, based on the poor elephant seal,
cumbersome and easily attacked by vicious sealers on land, speedy
and graceful on/in the water, but nevertheless doomed by its
liberal outlook and engineering limitations?

FT

The navigator© wrote:

More!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Well, it's in harmony with its subject matter, what did you
expect?

The navigator© wrote:


What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:



Peter Wiley wrote:



snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?

Hull Flexing
 

You mean, you want a heroic ode, based on the poor elephant seal,
cumbersome and easily attacked by vicious sealers on land, speedy
and graceful on/in the water, but nevertheless doomed by its
liberal outlook and engineering limitations?

FT

The navigator© wrote:

More!

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:

Well, it's in harmony with its subject matter, what did you
expect?

The navigator© wrote:

What a pathetic post.

Cheers MC

Flying Tadpole wrote:


Peter Wiley wrote:


snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.



Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?




--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Hull Flexing
 

Nope... no soldiers as far as I know... and why would they be watching my
buttocks? [Marines?]

Now what pray tell has changed about my recent posts? Have I not always
sought to be equally obnoxious to all of you? Have I not tried to make
certain each of you is given their due attention?

Has it become so difficult for you to follow a simple thread that you find
it impossible to comprehend that when someone on a sailing group asks
"what's your point" and you answer 32 degree it might relate to the heading
of your vessel? You can't see the tie MC? Are you becoming so sensitive that
the slightest of jabs causes you to feel hurt?

....and since when have you allowed gentlemanly behaviour to interfere with a
good strike.

Go ahead MC..... point it out!! ;-)

Or is it that you can dish it out but you can't take it?

CM


"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| I though you were talking about the angle of the fan of soldiers lined
| up behind you watching your buttocks -given your recent posts. being a
| gentleman I chose not to point this out.
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
|
| Oh Yeah... that's right you always have the engine on so it's
irrelevant!
|
| CM
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| | ?
| |
| | Cheers MC
| |
| | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| |
| | Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
| |
| | CM
| |
| | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | What's your point?
| | |
| | | Cheers MC
| | |
| | | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| | |
| | | How does that differ to her usual condition of standing by
outside a
| | harbour
| | | with a fouled prop?
| | |
| | | CM
| | |
| | | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid and
it's
| hard
| | to
| | | | measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects. The
flexability
| of
| | most
| | | | boats is such that the side stays limit the spread of the
hull
| as
| | the
| | | | backstay is tightened (this is naval architecture 101).
Current
| rig
| | | | tensions are much higher than they used to be. Even Ella has a
| | backstay
| | | | tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.
| | | |
| | | | Cheers MC
| | | |
| | | | DSK wrote:
| | | |
| | | | The_navigator© wrote:
| | | |
| | | | 4 thou. measured on the back of a boat? Complete BS.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | "The Captain...cap n all" wrote:
| | | | I would have thought so.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | AFAIK there was no reason to BS about it, the boat was a
one-off
| | | | and paid for. If I am interpreting the article about the
boat
| | | | correctly, the distortion was measured at the mid length
along a
| | | | straight from stem to center transom.
| | | |
| | | | If one is installing high powered hydraulics to control the
rig,
| | | | it makes sense to make the hull & deck structure as rigid as
| | | | possible, within reasonable weight limits. I haven't seen
any
| | | | figures for the distortion measured on the newest IACC boats
but
| | | | the early 1990s boats had very high rig loads (10K kg and
up)
| | | | and very little (if any) distortion.
| | | |
| | | | Fresh Breezes- Doug King
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|

Hull Flexing
 

Yeah.. I admit that.... but cripes I had to explain it to MC!!!

That would make it really really bad!

CM

"DSK" wrote in message
...
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote:
|
| Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
|
| Bad pun.... bad bad bad!
|
| DSK
|

Hull Flexing
 

It's like this. We were talking about the military. In fact there have
been more posts about the military than sailing recently so I just
posted a "?" because the context was not clear. Was that wrong of me?
Now, I assumed they would be looking at your ass because you would be
point -being a hero and all. Perhaps I think too laterally for you. I
will try to limit myself to your level in future, I promise.

Cheers MC

Capt. Mooron wrote:

Nope... no soldiers as far as I know... and why would they be watching my
buttocks? [Marines?]

Now what pray tell has changed about my recent posts? Have I not always
sought to be equally obnoxious to all of you? Have I not tried to make
certain each of you is given their due attention?

Has it become so difficult for you to follow a simple thread that you find
it impossible to comprehend that when someone on a sailing group asks
"what's your point" and you answer 32 degree it might relate to the heading
of your vessel? You can't see the tie MC? Are you becoming so sensitive that
the slightest of jabs causes you to feel hurt?

...and since when have you allowed gentlemanly behaviour to interfere with a
good strike.

Go ahead MC..... point it out!! ;-)

Or is it that you can dish it out but you can't take it?

CM


"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| I though you were talking about the angle of the fan of soldiers lined
| up behind you watching your buttocks -given your recent posts. being a
| gentleman I chose not to point this out.
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
|
| Oh Yeah... that's right you always have the engine on so it's
irrelevant!
|
| CM
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| | ?
| |
| | Cheers MC
| |
| | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| |
| | Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
| |
| | CM
| |
| | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | What's your point?
| | |
| | | Cheers MC
| | |
| | | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| | |
| | | How does that differ to her usual condition of standing by
outside a
| | harbour
| | | with a fouled prop?
| | |
| | | CM
| | |
| | | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid and
it's
| hard
| | to
| | | | measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects. The
flexability
| of
| | most
| | | | boats is such that the side stays limit the spread of the
hull
| as
| | the
| | | | backstay is tightened (this is naval architecture 101).
Current
| rig
| | | | tensions are much higher than they used to be. Even Ella has a
| | backstay
| | | | tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.
| | | |
| | | | Cheers MC
| | | |
| | | | DSK wrote:
| | | |
| | | | The_navigator© wrote:
| | | |
| | | | 4 thou. measured on the back of a boat? Complete BS.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | "The Captain...cap n all" wrote:
| | | | I would have thought so.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | AFAIK there was no reason to BS about it, the boat was a
one-off
| | | | and paid for. If I am interpreting the article about the
boat
| | | | correctly, the distortion was measured at the mid length
along a
| | | | straight from stem to center transom.
| | | |
| | | | If one is installing high powered hydraulics to control the
rig,
| | | | it makes sense to make the hull & deck structure as rigid as
| | | | possible, within reasonable weight limits. I haven't seen
any
| | | | figures for the distortion measured on the newest IACC boats
but
| | | | the early 1990s boats had very high rig loads (10K kg and
up)
| | | | and very little (if any) distortion.
| | | |
| | | | Fresh Breezes- Doug King
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|

Hull Flexing
 

Why not 552?

Cheers MC

Capetanios Oz wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:38:12 +1300, The_navigator©
wrote:


Sikaflex.

Cheers MC


292.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Hull Flexing
 

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
You mean, you want a heroic ode, based on the poor elephant seal,
cumbersome and easily attacked by vicious sealers on land, speedy
and graceful on/in the water, but nevertheless doomed by its
liberal outlook and engineering limitations?


Yes please!



Regards


Donal
--

Hull Flexing
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

Now what pray tell has changed about my recent posts? Have I not always
sought to be equally obnoxious to all of you?

You have never been obnoxious.



Have I not tried to make
certain each of you is given their due affection?

Yes!



Let's face it, Mooron. You are a really nice, Canadian, sort of guy. You
couldn't be obnoxious if you tried!

You've got the vocabluary, but not the nationility. I used to believe that
you were Belgian, especially when you said that you were allergic to soap.
However, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you use Imperial Leather
when you take a long bath -every day.



Regards



Donal
--

Hull Flexing
 

CHICKEN****!

CM

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| I though you were talking about the angle of the fan of soldiers lined
| up behind you watching your buttocks -given your recent posts. being a
| gentleman I chose not to point this out.
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
|
| Oh Yeah... that's right you always have the engine on so it's
irrelevant!
|
| CM
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| | ?
| |
| | Cheers MC
| |
| | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| |
| | Oh about 32 degrees in a pinch... You?
| |
| | CM
| |
| | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | What's your point?
| | |
| | | Cheers MC
| | |
| | | Capt. Mooron wrote:
| | |
| | | How does that differ to her usual condition of standing by
outside a
| | harbour
| | | with a fouled prop?
| | |
| | | CM
| | |
| | | "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | I'd say It's BS because boats are simply not that rigid and
it's
| hard
| | to
| | | | measure to an accuracy of 4 thou on big objects. The
flexability
| of
| | most
| | | | boats is such that the side stays limit the spread of the
hull
| as
| | the
| | | | backstay is tightened (this is naval architecture 101).
Current
| rig
| | | | tensions are much higher than they used to be. Even Ella has a
| | backstay
| | | | tension of 2,500 lbs when beating.
| | | |
| | | | Cheers MC
| | | |
| | | | DSK wrote:
| | | |
| | | | The_navigator© wrote:
| | | |
| | | | 4 thou. measured on the back of a boat? Complete BS.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | "The Captain...cap n all" wrote:
| | | | I would have thought so.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | AFAIK there was no reason to BS about it, the boat was a
one-off
| | | | and paid for. If I am interpreting the article about the
boat
| | | | correctly, the distortion was measured at the mid length
along a
| | | | straight from stem to center transom.
| | | |
| | | | If one is installing high powered hydraulics to control the
rig,
| | | | it makes sense to make the hull & deck structure as rigid as
| | | | possible, within reasonable weight limits. I haven't seen
any
| | | | figures for the distortion measured on the newest IACC boats
but
| | | | the early 1990s boats had very high rig loads (10K kg and
up)
| | | | and very little (if any) distortion.
| | | |
| | | | Fresh Breezes- Doug King
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|

Hull Flexing
 

I thought 552 was recommended for Al.

Cheers MC

Capetanios Oz wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:02:12 +1300, The_navigator©
wrote:


Why not 552?

Cheers MC


Good question.
292 was recommended by the rep.
IIRC they are both about the same afa strength goes.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Hull Flexing
 

In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:

Completely & utterly impossible to say without knowing design &
construction details and doing some sort of finite element analysis
which is way beyond my technical competence. That'd only give you a
theoretical measurement anyway.

But it is possible (not that difficult) to measure the hull's deflection
along any
axis in the real world. Not everybody has a dial indicator handy, though.

I agree completely. What I meant by saying you'd only get a theoretical
measurement. As a machinist I keep DTI's that measure to tenth's about,
of course. Hell, I've just been using a cheap laser level to level
formwork for a concrete slab I'm about to pour. When I finished, the
formwork was level to plus/minus 3mm all round, or 0.120". Today it'll
be something else, no doubt. We've used surveying gear to locate 3D GPS
antennae on ships to better accuracies. Isn't rocket science.


Think about it for 5 seconds, Nav. How thick is the plating? How many
longitudinals and frames and what spacing? How many welds and at what
spacing? What sort of keel? Is the deck a different material or not? Is
the shell monococque or not? Etc etc. Steel (I know little about ferro)
boats are typically a monococque construction with steel decks attached
to the hull by welding. Plastic boats may have their decks 'glassed to
the hull but usually it's a handful of self-tappers and a tube of
sikaflex. No rigidity there.

I disagree. Most structures are essentially the same, a box girder. Steel is
surprisingly limp all by itself. That's why they make I-beams instead of just
steel
planks.

True.


You're right that the details of the hull-deck joint are important to the
boats
structure. A lot of mass-produced boats do not have a very good hull deck
joint,
but others do. It is not inherent in the material.

Also true but I thought that's what I said - some plastic boats have
decks glassed to hull and this is damn strong, minimises possible
movement & flex (not to mention leaks.....) Those put together with pop
rivets or self-tappers have a lot more potential to flex.

I do know that some steel boats can be easily lifted by a couple of
eyebolts welded internally without any worries about deformation

So can many fiberglass boats. But this wasn't really an argument about the
relative
merits of steel vs fiberglass, was it?

Nope. Different materials, different strengths/weaknesses. Ditto ferro.
Friend just bought a 38' ferro sloop in really good shape for $30K AUD.
He knows the resale value is going to be the same - crap - but it's a
lot of boat for the money and for him it's a good choice. As he says,
if he gets 10 years out of it that works out to $3K pa even if he can't
sell it at all after that. Still worth it.

Peter Wiley

Hull Flexing
 

In article , Flying Tadpole
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:

snip

The issue isn't repeatability at all. You're merely trying to shift
goalposts. Your Ella is a racing boat and built like one - minimum
weight and what you see WRT flexing is what you'd expect. As a class
they break in really bad weather because they're outside their design
envelope.


Was it so bad a voyage/tour of duty, Peter, that even on your
return you insist on clubbing insensible elephant seals?

Was a good voyage actually. Hobart to the ice edge, into the pack for a
few weeks, across to Casey base through the pack and then back out and
home. Drop me a line and I'll send you some pix.

I don't have any problems with people owning lightweight plastic boats
- they do go fast and point high, plus you get lots of exercise
changing headsails with each 5 knot wind change. Just that nobody
should think they're good for much else.

Be nice to see a light schooner on the Derwent.

Peter Wiley