|
Ping: JohnH
|
Ping: JohnH
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:36:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2 Be careful out there. --Vic I'll get a picture of mine so you can see what I'm dealing with. It's not quite as grandiose! |
Ping: JohnH
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:36:25 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2 Be careful out there. --Vic I'll get a picture of mine so you can see what I'm dealing with. It's not quite as grandiose! When are you taking your first really long trip? |
Ping: JohnH
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:54:48 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:36:25 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2 Be careful out there. --Vic I'll get a picture of mine so you can see what I'm dealing with. It's not quite as grandiose! Just be sure it's not as high (-: --Vic |
Ping: JohnH
Stupidity at it's finest. Wonder if the son can spell 'stupid'.
JR Vic Smith wrote: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...519027&catid=2 Be careful out there. --Vic -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth |
Ping: JohnH
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. |
Ping: JohnH
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. |
Ping: JohnH
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... |
Ping: JohnH
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. |
Ping: JohnH
wrote in message ... 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... Not one that can't spell technician. |
Ping: JohnH
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;) |
Ping: JohnH
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. |
Ping: JohnH (Off Topic Spam)
"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 |
Ping: JohnH (Off Topic Spam)
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. |
Ping: JohnH
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. |
Ping: JohnH (Off Topic Spam)
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. |
Ping: JohnH
"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 |
Ping: JohnH
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! |
Ping: JohnH
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com