P.C. Ford ) writes:
On 20 Jan 2004 15:50:22 GMT, (William R.
Watt) wrote:

P.C. Ford ) writes:

......and is not a marine glue.

"marine glue"? its water resistent, not water proof. the label on the tube
says not to use it in construction "below grade". however plastic resin
glue is also water resistent and not water proof

The fact of the matter is that the criterion that determines Mr. Watts
choice of materials is the horrible agony which he undergoes when he
extends his right arm in the direction of the pocket in which he keeps
his wallet.

ah, like the cornered rat that he is PC Ford avoids the discussion at hand
in which his opinion on glue has been soundly refuted and turns to attack
instead the cost while ignoring the benefit number in the the cost/benefit
ratio.


If epoxy were a dollar cheaper than polyester, he would use it.
If Sikaflex were a dollar cheaper than "Liquid Nails", he would use
it.

probably, but then there is the whole toxicity issue. are you saying you'd
like me to have an irrational attachment to polyester?


He is interested in building a boat (or something that resembles a
boat) for the least possible amount. He has bragged about building a
boat for $17.35 CDN. Endurance, beauty and safety are a distant second
in his requirements.

that, sir, is a conmpletely unfounded claim. a boat has to endure long
enough to carry its load safely over the water until it has paid for
itself. as I've reported here previously the lovely Loonie, the apple of my
eye, is now operating at $2 a trip and getting lower with every one. I'll
stack that up against any other pleasure boat, anytime.

whoever said old boats full of mahogony trim are pleasing to look at?
they look like old cars full of chrome trim to some of us. plug ugly.


I have done boat restoration for a living (such as it is) for about 30
years. About 95% of the time, my clients know very little about boats.
I do things which will extend the endurance, beauty and safety of the
boat and that my clients will never see or know about.

Of course, there are many levels of finish and workmanship. The paint
job and fits which are appropriate on a 19th century sailing canoe
would not be required or even appropriate on a wooden barge.

However, to cut all corners in order to build a boat for the least
possible investment as your main criterion is, (and I am not soley
criticizing Mr. Watt) frankly disgusting.

to cut all superfluous corners, especially all that ugly mohogony trim
and those garish brass fittings, is smart boat building. all that stuff is
only on those boats to impress onlookers with the amount of money the
ower could afford to waste. stockbrokers, bankers, and robber barons, bah.
sure, that stuff sells boats. people want you to think they are bankers
and stockbrokers. bah.


Very few non-professional boatbuilders actually have to or need to
build a boat. They do it as a hobby; it's something they do for
pleasure. I cannot fathom why someone would take pleasure in doing it
for absolutely least possible amount of money. I suppose it is another
example of the careless throwaway nature of what we call western
civilization.

But the important thing is that it just doesn't look like fun to me.
Can't understand this kind of reasoning.

to each his own. some like the designing best. some the building. some the
boating or fishing or whatever. a boat need not be an end in itself. its
primarily a mode of transportation. people who want them for
transportation are quite right in no wanting to spend any more on them
than they have to. lots and lots of amateur boatbuilders build a boat for
one reason, to save money. nothing wrong with building a boat that will do
the job at least cost. lots of the old boats traditionalists like to
worship and call lovely were nothing mroe than the cheapest work boats
that would do the job. all commercial boats are built to maximize the
owners finacial return. its when people start spending money on boats just
to impress that they turn ugly and wasteful.

I'll bet PD Ford eats off a Loius IV solid mahogony dining table at his
house.



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Jim Conlin ) writes:
It is, but, unfortunately, those whose shoddy boats have not yet fallen apart
insist on claiming their little victories.

all boats eventually fall apart.
even boats with epoxy in them.
no claiming any little victory with that statement.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

William R. Watt ) writes:

I'll bet PD Ford eats off a Loius IV solid mahogony dining table at his
house.

that should have been PC Ford.
sorry about the typo.
the name is known in the newsgroup.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

(William R. Watt) wrote in message ...
P.C. Ford ) writes:
On 20 Jan 2004 15:50:22 GMT, (William R.
Watt) wrote:

P.C. Ford ) writes:

......and is not a marine glue.

"marine glue"? its water resistent, not water proof. the label on the tube
says not to use it in construction "below grade". however plastic resin
glue is also water resistent and not water proof

The fact of the matter is that the criterion that determines Mr. Watts
choice of materials is the horrible agony which he undergoes when he
extends his right arm in the direction of the pocket in which he keeps
his wallet.

ah, like the cornered rat that he is PC Ford avoids the discussion at hand
in which his opinion on glue has been soundly refuted and turns to attack
instead the cost while ignoring the benefit number in the the cost/benefit
ratio.


If epoxy were a dollar cheaper than polyester, he would use it.
If Sikaflex were a dollar cheaper than "Liquid Nails", he would use
it.

probably, but then there is the whole toxicity issue. are you saying you'd
like me to have an irrational attachment to polyester?


He is interested in building a boat (or something that resembles a
boat) for the least possible amount. He has bragged about building a
boat for $17.35 CDN. Endurance, beauty and safety are a distant second
in his requirements.

that, sir, is a conmpletely unfounded claim. a boat has to endure long
enough to carry its load safely over the water until it has paid for
itself. as I've reported here previously the lovely Loonie, the apple of my
eye, is now operating at $2 a trip and getting lower with every one. I'll
stack that up against any other pleasure boat, anytime.

whoever said old boats full of mahogony trim are pleasing to look at?
they look like old cars full of chrome trim to some of us. plug ugly.


I have done boat restoration for a living (such as it is) for about 30
years. About 95% of the time, my clients know very little about boats.
I do things which will extend the endurance, beauty and safety of the
boat and that my clients will never see or know about.

Of course, there are many levels of finish and workmanship. The paint
job and fits which are appropriate on a 19th century sailing canoe
would not be required or even appropriate on a wooden barge.

However, to cut all corners in order to build a boat for the least
possible investment as your main criterion is, (and I am not soley
criticizing Mr. Watt) frankly disgusting.

to cut all superfluous corners, especially all that ugly mohogony trim
and those garish brass fittings, is smart boat building. all that stuff is
only on those boats to impress onlookers with the amount of money the
ower could afford to waste. stockbrokers, bankers, and robber barons, bah.
sure, that stuff sells boats. people want you to think they are bankers
and stockbrokers. bah.


Very few non-professional boatbuilders actually have to or need to
build a boat. They do it as a hobby; it's something they do for
pleasure. I cannot fathom why someone would take pleasure in doing it
for absolutely least possible amount of money. I suppose it is another
example of the careless throwaway nature of what we call western
civilization.

But the important thing is that it just doesn't look like fun to me.
Can't understand this kind of reasoning.

to each his own. some like the designing best. some the building. some the
boating or fishing or whatever. a boat need not be an end in itself. its
primarily a mode of transportation. people who want them for
transportation are quite right in no wanting to spend any more on them
than they have to. lots and lots of amateur boatbuilders build a boat for
one reason, to save money. nothing wrong with building a boat that will do
the job at least cost. lots of the old boats traditionalists like to
worship and call lovely were nothing mroe than the cheapest work boats
that would do the job. all commercial boats are built to maximize the
owners finacial return. its when people start spending money on boats just
to impress that they turn ugly and wasteful.

I'll bet PD Ford eats off a Loius IV solid mahogony dining table at his
house.

PC is not usually agreeable with the whole concept of S+T boats to
start with, and aside from a comment I made last year about some
"retired aviation engineer", has shown to have knowledge and
appreciation of earlier construction methods and ideas (I refuse to
call them "traditional"). The fact that he would even address, without
sarcasm issues related to S+T boats, is a good start. Who knows, maybe
someday he will build a quick S+T just for the enjoyment of doing it
with a kid on a few afternoons... (remove tounge from cheek) Either
way he has softened , and many of the construction and safety issues
he addresses are indeed valid.

I think what we need to remember here is that there will be folks who
are going to build their first boat that will come to this group for
information. You can not assume that they will come to the table with
all of the experience you have with wood, smallboats, research and
development, and even good old common sense that you bring, when you
determine polyester is better than epoxy, or cheap luan in place of
marine, for your boat. It is important that we tailor our information
to that possibility and any generality, especially one that would
suggest not to use marine wood, or marine adhesive, for a marine
vehicle, may not serve those who are the most unaware of
possibilities, while building or on the water, in the most responsible
manner.

Also, I refuse to accept the notion that I am not at least somewhat
responsible for something that might, or may not happen because of
something I suggested here in this group, that is why I usually spend
more time explaining my opinion, than just defending it...

And just for the sake of full disclosure, I have no particular agenda
here. I build and have built boats of Poly, Epoxy, Occume, and ACX,
fir, Mahogany, etc... but there are several criteria which determine
what materials should be used for any and every boat, including
builder experience, environment, end use of vessel, etc... See my post
he
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...boats.building

I will note one more thing. There is no reason a smallboat can not be
relatively inexpensive, safe, and beautiful.
Scotty from SmallBoats.com

On 20 Jan 2004 23:38:21 GMT, (William R.
Watt) wrote:


I'll bet PD Ford eats off a Loius IV solid mahogony dining table at his
house.

Sorry, it is an simple oak table which belonged to my grandparents
(and maybe great grandparents) Probably about a hundred years old.
It's not fancy but it was built of proper materials and it has served
its purpose for many years. You should try that philosophy.

P.C. Ford ) writes:
On 20 Jan 2004 23:38:21 GMT, (William R.
Watt) wrote:


I'll bet PD Ford eats off a Loius IV solid mahogony dining table at his
house.

Sorry, it is an simple oak table which belonged to my grandparents
(and maybe great grandparents) Probably about a hundred years old.
It's not fancy but it was built of proper materials and it has served
its purpose for many years. You should try that philosophy.

I eat off a government surplus conference table. It has no solid
wood in it, just sawdust and glue with surface veneer and shiny chrome
metal legs. Weighs a ton. Looks impressive. Power dining.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

WHAT!? You guys have tables!!??

William R. Watt wrote:
P.C. Ford ) writes:

On 20 Jan 2004 23:38:21 GMT, (William R.
Watt) wrote:



I'll bet PD Ford eats off a Loius IV solid mahogony dining table at his
house.

Sorry, it is an simple oak table which belonged to my grandparents
(and maybe great grandparents) Probably about a hundred years old.
It's not fancy but it was built of proper materials and it has served
its purpose for many years. You should try that philosophy.


I eat off a government surplus conference table. It has no solid
wood in it, just sawdust and glue with surface veneer and shiny chrome
metal legs. Weighs a ton. Looks impressive. Power dining.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned