On Jul 18, 9:51*am, wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:14*am, wrote:





On Jul 18, 9:06*am, wrote:

On Jul 17, 7:39*pm, DK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2

Be careful out there.

--Vic

Poor design. *It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. *That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. *Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.

it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

Well, then.. It was designed without much foresight. Do you think the
result would have been different if the guy hit the post.. And who
would design something like that to sit in a parking lot and not
assume it might get bumped by a moving vehicle.. idiots, engineers,
useless * Should have been designed by a technition...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cost dictates a lot of things.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

C'mon loog, that was just a stupid design. BTW, email me and the Mouse
an update on The Breeze if you will

wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:06 am, wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:39 pm, DK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2
Be careful out there.
--Vic
Poor design. It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.
it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

Well, then.. It was designed without much foresight. Do you think the
result would have been different if the guy hit the post.. And who
would design something like that to sit in a parking lot and not
assume it might get bumped by a moving vehicle.. idiots, engineers,
useless Should have been designed by a technition...


What could be more ironic than Loogy, JustWait and DK cluttering up the
newsgroup with off-topic, non-boating discussions. It's so obvious none
of them give a damn about boats or boating.

But they are good at whining about the posts of others.

On Jul 18, 9:56*am, wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:51*am, wrote:





On Jul 18, 9:14*am, wrote:

On Jul 18, 9:06*am, wrote:

On Jul 17, 7:39*pm, DK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2

Be careful out there.

--Vic

Poor design. *It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. *That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. *Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.

it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

Well, then.. It was designed without much foresight. Do you think the
result would have been different if the guy hit the post.. And who
would design something like that to sit in a parking lot and not
assume it might get bumped by a moving vehicle.. idiots, engineers,
useless * Should have been designed by a technition...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cost dictates a lot of things.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

C'mon loog, that was just a stupid design. BTW, email me and the Mouse
an update on The Breeze if you will- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'd be surprised how constrained design is by price. It's so
competitive that now days you just about have to do complete
construction documents for the estimators to price with. And that
sucks if the job gets out bid by someone.

"hk" wrote in message
...

What could be more ironic than Loogy, JustWait and DK cluttering up the
newsgroup with off-topic, non-boating discussions. It's so obvious none of
them give a damn about boats or boating.



Is this the same "hk" that cuts and pastes left wing media articles about
impending bank failures as new threads?

*That* "hk" ?

Eisboch

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:11:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...

What could be more ironic than Loogy, JustWait and DK cluttering up the
newsgroup with off-topic, non-boating discussions. It's so obvious none of
them give a damn about boats or boating.



Is this the same "hk" that cuts and pastes left wing media articles about
impending bank failures as new threads?

*That* "hk" ?

Eisboch


It took a while.

But you're catching on.

wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:39 pm, DK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2
Be careful out there.
--Vic
Poor design. It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.

it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

That was a weak impact for a structure like that.

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
What could be more ironic than Loogy, JustWait and DK cluttering up the
newsgroup with off-topic, non-boating discussions. It's so obvious none of
them give a damn about boats or boating.



Is this the same "hk" that cuts and pastes left wing media articles about
impending bank failures as new threads?

*That* "hk" ?

Eisboch



WAFA has no flaws. Nothing he buys is less than perfect. If he can't
understand it, it's worthless. If he can't afford it he simply imagines
it and posts about it's existence.

"DK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:39 pm, DK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2
Be careful out there.
--Vic
Poor design. It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.

it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

That was a weak impact for a structure like that.



I agree. That fifth wheel trailer top should have crumbled into matchsticks
before it knocked the canopy down.

Eisboch

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:34:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"DK" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:39 pm, DK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2
Be careful out there.
--Vic
Poor design. It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.

it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

That was a weak impact for a structure like that.



I agree. That fifth wheel trailer top should have crumbled into matchsticks
before it knocked the canopy down.

Eisboch


Maybe there really *are* some well-made fivers out there!

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:34:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"DK" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:39 pm, DK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2
Be careful out there.
--Vic
Poor design. It cantilevers out too far and the supports are
substandard. That canopy should have held up much better than that -
the trailer was barely damaged. Fortunately, no one else was under it
at the time.

it just wasn't designed for side impact. It was designed to resist
other forces, mainly in that configuration wind.

That was a weak impact for a structure like that.



I agree. That fifth wheel trailer top should have crumbled into matchsticks
before it knocked the canopy down.

Eisboch


Maybe there really *are* some well-made fivers out there!