Re: Carbon Spars
Maybe there will be more information out in the next few years. The
key here is a combination of technique and materials. The designer
has based the pole on carbon yarn, mostly, and the result is that the
fibers run about 7.50 a pound. At these prices, the materials will
cost less that east coast sourced sitka, and be mayber half the
diameter. There is a lot of potential for traditional rigs since
those are amoung the ones that can take advantage a a fine light
pole. Reason being, they are often stayless, demountable, and could
benifit in light air from higher aspect ratios. Think of the Irens
Roxana. I don't have the plans yet, and have no idea whether they
will strike me as practical when I do, though I am told is is just
basic stuff.
key here is a combination of technique and materials. The designer
has based the pole on carbon yarn, mostly, and the result is that the
fibers run about 7.50 a pound. At these prices, the materials will
cost less that east coast sourced sitka, and be mayber half the
diameter. There is a lot of potential for traditional rigs since
those are amoung the ones that can take advantage a a fine light
pole. Reason being, they are often stayless, demountable, and could
benifit in light air from higher aspect ratios. Think of the Irens
Roxana. I don't have the plans yet, and have no idea whether they
will strike me as practical when I do, though I am told is is just
basic stuff.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@p...> wrote:
> I hope you document and photo this project excessively. There is
not much
> info out there on home built carbon spars.
>
> HJ
>
> This is for Fat Eeek, which I didn't
> > finish this year, not even having money for the paint. So next
year
> > will be the proof of it. This year I hope to build a 36' carbon
> > fiber spar, freestanding, horses for courses...
> >
> >
I hope you document and photo this project excessively. There is not much
info out there on home built carbon spars.
HJ
This is for Fat Eeek, which I didn't
info out there on home built carbon spars.
HJ
This is for Fat Eeek, which I didn't
> finish this year, not even having money for the paint. So next year
> will be the proof of it. This year I hope to build a 36' carbon
> fiber spar, freestanding, horses for courses...
>
>
>I
> I don't have the experience to argue with you, and I should explain
> that I was not advocating the use of white pine for boat structure.
> was only giving my impression that it is used by a fair number ofI don't think there is any argument possible at the level of better
> builders throwing together a Teal or Light Dory.
grades of material. One of the big aircraft supply places is called
aircraft spruce and specialties or something. Hughes' big plane was
called the Spruce Goose, though it was in fact made of birch.
But the best evidence is always in our own hands. We all just have
to look at what we are getting localy and make up our own minds. I
just finished making a Japanese bench using largely white pine. That
wood was lovely. I went to one ultralite plane factory, and they
were using pine for the wing spars. They had a little fixture that
pressed a dimensioned sample of the material between a fixture, a
bottle jack, and a bathroom scale. From this they graded the actual
samples in hand, rather than depending on book learning such as I
just referenced. David is doing the same thing by eye, and assuradly
you rpobably could laminate up a spar out of the material you refered
to.
On his Trimarans, Piver used a system where he took two 2 2x6s and
laminated them into a 4x6. He ripped diagonal scarphs every 4 feet
in the 2x materials before gluing them up into 4x6, The result was a
lot of diamond shaped pieces prior to assembly. This system worked
well. I did a variation of it recently when building a small spar.
I took a bunch of 2x6 material I had salvaged from a pallet, and
ripped it into 2x2, leaving the cores/pith for the fire. Then I
looked at each resulting piece, and everywhere there was a knot, I
cut a scarph. Then I glued the whole mess back together. I paid no
attention to regular spacing of the scarphs. The whole cutting and
ripping exercise was done with a worm drive, and took about 30
minutes. I planned the scarphs by hand, and reassembled them with
glue, a staple at each feather, and clamps. I got a very high
quality spar out of scrap. This is for Fat Eeek, which I didn't
finish this year, not even having money for the paint. So next year
will be the proof of it. This year I hope to build a 36' carbon
fiber spar, freestanding, horses for courses...
> You raise another issue. I once looked over a pallet of "spruce"weak,
> boards at my local lumberyard. They were about 1" thick and neither
> planed or sanded. They were cheap, but seemed very rough, very
> and very limber. Questions: For what use were they intended? Wouldit
> be possible for a boatbuilder with a planer to dress them and glue
> them up into a small boat spar, e.g. the sprit or yard of a 10-15'
> boat? Would it be a good idea, or is this just stuff to walk away
> from?
>
> Peter
>You raise another issue. I once looked over a pallet of "spruce"I use this stuff all the time. Not great, but frequently better than
>boards at my local lumberyard. They were about 1" thick and neither
>planed or sanded. They were cheap, but seemed very rough, very weak,
>and very limber. Questions: For what use were they intended? Would it
>be possible for a boatbuilder with a planer to dress them and glue
>them up into a small boat spar, e.g. the sprit or yard of a 10-15'
>boat? Would it be a good idea, or is this just stuff to walk away
>from?
the crap Doug Fir 2x4's we get out here. Not as strong as good Doug
Fir, but cheaper than crap Doug Fir. Comes in a more convenient
dimension.
There is no "best", except that it would be "best" not to waste
money on boats in the first place.
-D
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
> Sitka is the best structural softwood for boat or airplaneI don't have the experience to argue with you, and I should explain
> construction...I would use whatever the spruce is that
> they have in eastern yards before I would touch pine.
that I was not advocating the use of white pine for boat structure. I
was only giving my impression that it is used by a fair number of
builders throwing together a Teal or Light Dory.
You raise another issue. I once looked over a pallet of "spruce"
boards at my local lumberyard. They were about 1" thick and neither
planed or sanded. They were cheap, but seemed very rough, very weak,
and very limber. Questions: For what use were they intended? Would it
be possible for a boatbuilder with a planer to dress them and glue
them up into a small boat spar, e.g. the sprit or yard of a 10-15'
boat? Would it be a good idea, or is this just stuff to walk away
from?
Peter
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart <pvanderw@o...>"
<pvanderw@o...> wrote:
construction. It is more rot resistant than pine, certainly as good
as any of the plywood materials comonly associated with these boats,
though if one is concerned about rot, coat it. Pine is very weak
compareably, and splits easily. D-Fir is a great wood. It is one of
the options that one can just walk into a lumberyard and convert from
2x stock, though not where I live. The really high quality D-Fir, is
heavy, and none of it is as split resistant as sitka. In the world
of drywall screws instead of clamps or ring nail Sitka is fabulous.
Unfortunately the price has gone up a lot recently, and it is getting
to be too expensive for low-tech stuff. D-Dir is a lot stronger than
Sitka, which is sort of in second place. But the extra weight mostly
offsets that.
I would use whatever the spruce is that they have in eastern yards
before I would touch pine. It is kinda rubbery, not as split prone
as pine, probably about the same in rot resistance, and it seems
pretty strong. The main problem with it is quality. But buying the
wider stock, and cutting out the middle can yield nice quartered
material.
Any wood that won't break during assembly, and is sheathed, is a
reasonable condidate in my experience.
<pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> > Marine grade Sitka,want
> > here would be 8.50 a 2x6 foot.
>
> I'm not a boatbuilder, but I don't think Sitka is what you would
> for a chine anyway. It is strong for its weight, but brittle andnot
> rot-resistant. Bolger usually calls for fir. I would think that alot
> of Bolger home builders use ordinary lumberyard white pine, andthat
> it would be at least as good as Sitka.Sitka is the best structural softwood for boat or airplane
>
> Peter
construction. It is more rot resistant than pine, certainly as good
as any of the plywood materials comonly associated with these boats,
though if one is concerned about rot, coat it. Pine is very weak
compareably, and splits easily. D-Fir is a great wood. It is one of
the options that one can just walk into a lumberyard and convert from
2x stock, though not where I live. The really high quality D-Fir, is
heavy, and none of it is as split resistant as sitka. In the world
of drywall screws instead of clamps or ring nail Sitka is fabulous.
Unfortunately the price has gone up a lot recently, and it is getting
to be too expensive for low-tech stuff. D-Dir is a lot stronger than
Sitka, which is sort of in second place. But the extra weight mostly
offsets that.
I would use whatever the spruce is that they have in eastern yards
before I would touch pine. It is kinda rubbery, not as split prone
as pine, probably about the same in rot resistance, and it seems
pretty strong. The main problem with it is quality. But buying the
wider stock, and cutting out the middle can yield nice quartered
material.
Any wood that won't break during assembly, and is sheathed, is a
reasonable condidate in my experience.
> Marine grade Sitka,I'm not a boatbuilder, but I don't think Sitka is what you would want
> here would be 8.50 a 2x6 foot.
for a chine anyway. It is strong for its weight, but brittle and not
rot-resistant. Bolger usually calls for fir. I would think that a lot
of Bolger home builders use ordinary lumberyard white pine, and that
it would be at least as good as Sitka.
Peter
I agree, sometimes the strongback is faster. But a number of people
have mentioned that they would prefer to stich and glue, and that
means frameless assembly except as regards permanent frames. If you
use frames and a strongback, then tack and tape is faster. I think
it can be faster even if you use a temporary chine log on the
outside, and then cut them back after adding the internal fillet. At
least around here, it is no problem, cheaply getting a 16' 2x6, off
which you could rip a beautiful pair of chine logs. Only problem is
that it isn't really marine grade, but as a temporary log, you could
bust it out in minutes with a circular hand saw. Marine grade Sitka,
here would be 8.50 a 2x6 foot.
With stitch and glue the bottom wouldn't be a problem, but the amount
of flair that exist in this curvy shear would be intereting to set
without some kind of frame.
have mentioned that they would prefer to stich and glue, and that
means frameless assembly except as regards permanent frames. If you
use frames and a strongback, then tack and tape is faster. I think
it can be faster even if you use a temporary chine log on the
outside, and then cut them back after adding the internal fillet. At
least around here, it is no problem, cheaply getting a 16' 2x6, off
which you could rip a beautiful pair of chine logs. Only problem is
that it isn't really marine grade, but as a temporary log, you could
bust it out in minutes with a circular hand saw. Marine grade Sitka,
here would be 8.50 a 2x6 foot.
With stitch and glue the bottom wouldn't be a problem, but the amount
of flair that exist in this curvy shear would be intereting to set
without some kind of frame.
> With our without patterns, if you build the light dory withoutshape
> bending the sides around molds it's not going to quite have the
> that PCB drew. I know this because I've built two no-chineloggulls,
> and if you take them off the molds before you fasten the gunnel,they
> warp substantially.to
>
> How much it matters, I don't know. But if I were building the boat
> without the strongback and mold-stations, I still think I'd need
> contrive something to hold it all in place while I was glue it
> together. A strongback w/mold stations might not be the only way to
> do this, but it certainly is an EASY way to do this.
>
> YIBB,
>
> David
> --
>
> C.E.P.
> 415 W.46th Street
> New York, New York 10036
>http://www.crumblingempire.com
> Mobile (646) 325-8325
> Office (212) 247-0296
>OK Specter on Payson's site is selling full size patterns for theWith our without patterns, if you build the light dory without
>light dory, including the bottom. So you can sticth and glue from
>those, if they are what they sound like. I say that because it says
>they include the bottom. That is one thing on a Cartopper, and
>another on a dorry (because on the Cartopper plans there are two
>other fitted panels , while it IS the bottom that is fitted on the
>dory. But assuming they are what they say they are, then you would
>not require any frames or chines to get to the bottom shape of the
>dory, and that is all that was missing in order to stich and glue
>them.
bending the sides around molds it's not going to quite have the shape
that PCB drew. I know this because I've built two no-chinelog gulls,
and if you take them off the molds before you fasten the gunnel, they
warp substantially.
How much it matters, I don't know. But if I were building the boat
without the strongback and mold-stations, I still think I'd need to
contrive something to hold it all in place while I was glue it
together. A strongback w/mold stations might not be the only way to
do this, but it certainly is an EASY way to do this.
YIBB,
David
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
OK Specter on Payson's site is selling full size patterns for the
light dory, including the bottom. So you can sticth and glue from
those, if they are what they sound like. I say that because it says
they include the bottom. That is one thing on a Cartopper, and
another on a dorry (because on the Cartopper plans there are two
other fitted panels , while it IS the bottom that is fitted on the
dory. But assuming they are what they say they are, then you would
not require any frames or chines to get to the bottom shape of the
dory, and that is all that was missing in order to stich and glue
them.
light dory, including the bottom. So you can sticth and glue from
those, if they are what they sound like. I say that because it says
they include the bottom. That is one thing on a Cartopper, and
another on a dorry (because on the Cartopper plans there are two
other fitted panels , while it IS the bottom that is fitted on the
dory. But assuming they are what they say they are, then you would
not require any frames or chines to get to the bottom shape of the
dory, and that is all that was missing in order to stich and glue
them.
I've yet
Why would that be? Keep in mind that if you are confident building
without a strongback, then there is nothing saying you need one for
the construction of the Gull either, on the other hand if your shop
has one hanging around from your last striper or whatever, this will
speed up construction vs stich and glue. You do have to assemble a
couple of frames for the Gull, so 20 minutes later... Then you have
to install a chine log. Ok that is more trouble, 1 hr maybe,
depending on how perfectly any wood you have on hand may match up
with the piece required, I can spend an hour finding the stock.
There is a bevel, but it is just a level horizon with the other
side. Nailing and glueing is much faster and somewhat easier that
wiring and coving. Though I would prefer to have the maintenance on
the S&G. It is never faster and easier (or cheaper) to finish 25%
more boat, a definite poke in the eye for the Long version.
Enough of the Gulls have been built that if we just had the offsets
for the Gull's bottom, it would be S&G for both.
> to build it, but a friend who has built both versions said thestretched
> dory was much easier (and faster) to build and out performed theGull.
Why would that be? Keep in mind that if you are confident building
without a strongback, then there is nothing saying you need one for
the construction of the Gull either, on the other hand if your shop
has one hanging around from your last striper or whatever, this will
speed up construction vs stich and glue. You do have to assemble a
couple of frames for the Gull, so 20 minutes later... Then you have
to install a chine log. Ok that is more trouble, 1 hr maybe,
depending on how perfectly any wood you have on hand may match up
with the piece required, I can spend an hour finding the stock.
There is a bevel, but it is just a level horizon with the other
side. Nailing and glueing is much faster and somewhat easier that
wiring and coving. Though I would prefer to have the maintenance on
the S&G. It is never faster and easier (or cheaper) to finish 25%
more boat, a definite poke in the eye for the Long version.
Enough of the Gulls have been built that if we just had the offsets
for the Gull's bottom, it would be S&G for both.
I have a set of stretched dory plans. Much more minimalist (is that an
oxymoron?) than Gypsy or June Bug plans. Basically zero text. But if you've
built the Gull, the tack and tape stretched dory should be a snap. I've yet
to build it, but a friend who has built both versions said the stretched
dory was much easier (and faster) to build and out performed the Gull. He
also said it rowed very well single handed. Not sure about the weight,
though. I'd guess about 60-70 kg if you used marine ply and roughly 80-90 kg
with exterior fir. Neither weight would I want to carry very far alone. I
intend to use mine for makerel fishing along the Fundy shore, both single
handed and with guests. I (or we) will simply slide it over high water
gravel beaches. Maybe flip it over and lean against it's sides while we fry
fish and sip a beverage of choice. Good luck.
jeb, still Micro grinding and dreaming of summer on the shores of Fundy
oxymoron?) than Gypsy or June Bug plans. Basically zero text. But if you've
built the Gull, the tack and tape stretched dory should be a snap. I've yet
to build it, but a friend who has built both versions said the stretched
dory was much easier (and faster) to build and out performed the Gull. He
also said it rowed very well single handed. Not sure about the weight,
though. I'd guess about 60-70 kg if you used marine ply and roughly 80-90 kg
with exterior fir. Neither weight would I want to carry very far alone. I
intend to use mine for makerel fishing along the Fundy shore, both single
handed and with guests. I (or we) will simply slide it over high water
gravel beaches. Maybe flip it over and lean against it's sides while we fry
fish and sip a beverage of choice. Good luck.
jeb, still Micro grinding and dreaming of summer on the shores of Fundy
I haven't built her yet, but I've just received my plans for the Big
Dory (after a 7 month delay) from Common Sense Designs (order your's
from Payson or PB&F).
She looks like a great row boat. I plan to add floatation
compartments high up at both bow and stern, which with waterproof
hatches will double as dry storage. These will resemble the
compartments shown on the Metric Light Dory Type V shown a while back
in MAIB. At 19' she's a wee bit big to car top, so I'll modify a
trailler. Hope to get some great open water exercise out of her (I
can sure use some, her greater capacity will not be wasted floating
my, er, bulk) and to tow her around the continent once or twice for
some great scenic rows.
Plans look good, straight forward and simple to build. I'll stich and
glue her.
Bruce Hector
www.brucesboats.com
Dory (after a 7 month delay) from Common Sense Designs (order your's
from Payson or PB&F).
She looks like a great row boat. I plan to add floatation
compartments high up at both bow and stern, which with waterproof
hatches will double as dry storage. These will resemble the
compartments shown on the Metric Light Dory Type V shown a while back
in MAIB. At 19' she's a wee bit big to car top, so I'll modify a
trailler. Hope to get some great open water exercise out of her (I
can sure use some, her greater capacity will not be wasted floating
my, er, bulk) and to tow her around the continent once or twice for
some great scenic rows.
Plans look good, straight forward and simple to build. I'll stich and
glue her.
Bruce Hector
www.brucesboats.com
You can buy thos plans from Payson for 35.00.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pibracing <mcerio02@t...>"
<mcerio02@t...> wrote:
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pibracing <mcerio02@t...>"
<mcerio02@t...> wrote:
> Go to this link and read the post that is 17 lines down,It talks aboutDory.http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Open%2dwater%20rowing
> the Big
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor
> <proaconstrictor@y...>" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "hted2000 <planetre@h...>"
> > <planetre@h...> wrote:
> > > Years ago I built the Bolger Light dory I found it a little tender
> > > but fast, it's now gone and it's time to build another. How does
> > the
> > > long version compare? I really want to use tack and tape this time.
> > > How much does the long boat weigh, and is it suitable for a single
> > > rower, what are the advantages of the larger dory over the small
> > one?
> > > Thanks for the help
> >
> > I thought the main reason for the long dory was to accomodate more
> > people and rowers, so I don't think it would be a great single.
> > Presumably something could be done to stretch and narrow a 16, but it
> > is pretty much already at the point of zero wave forming, so what
> > would be the advantage?
Go to this link and read the post that is 17 lines down,It talks about
the Big
Dory.http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Open%2dwater%20rowing
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor
<proaconstrictor@y...>" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
the Big
Dory.http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Open%2dwater%20rowing
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor
<proaconstrictor@y...>" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "hted2000 <planetre@h...>"
> <planetre@h...> wrote:
> > Years ago I built the Bolger Light dory I found it a little tender
> > but fast, it's now gone and it's time to build another. How does
> the
> > long version compare? I really want to use tack and tape this time.
> > How much does the long boat weigh, and is it suitable for a single
> > rower, what are the advantages of the larger dory over the small
> one?
> > Thanks for the help
>
> I thought the main reason for the long dory was to accomodate more
> people and rowers, so I don't think it would be a great single.
> Presumably something could be done to stretch and narrow a 16, but it
> is pretty much already at the point of zero wave forming, so what
> would be the advantage?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "hted2000 <planetre@h...>"
<planetre@h...> wrote:
people and rowers, so I don't think it would be a great single.
Presumably something could be done to stretch and narrow a 16, but it
is pretty much already at the point of zero wave forming, so what
would be the advantage?
<planetre@h...> wrote:
> Years ago I built the Bolger Light dory I found it a little tenderthe
> but fast, it's now gone and it's time to build another. How does
> long version compare? I really want to use tack and tape this time.one?
> How much does the long boat weigh, and is it suitable for a single
> rower, what are the advantages of the larger dory over the small
> Thanks for the helpI thought the main reason for the long dory was to accomodate more
people and rowers, so I don't think it would be a great single.
Presumably something could be done to stretch and narrow a 16, but it
is pretty much already at the point of zero wave forming, so what
would be the advantage?
Years ago I built the Bolger Light dory I found it a little tender
but fast, it's now gone and it's time to build another. How does the
long version compare? I really want to use tack and tape this time.
How much does the long boat weigh, and is it suitable for a single
rower, what are the advantages of the larger dory over the small one?
Thanks for the help
but fast, it's now gone and it's time to build another. How does the
long version compare? I really want to use tack and tape this time.
How much does the long boat weigh, and is it suitable for a single
rower, what are the advantages of the larger dory over the small one?
Thanks for the help