- This topic has 29 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
2 degrees might be too much. It would give the builder a possibility to make the bottom about 13mm (1/2 inch) wider or narrower than the top in the highest parts of the hull. I am not sure we want that and i do not think boats are built close to that. I want max 1 degree.
Maybe 2 degrees would be fine if we also set the wide different up and down to max 1/4 inch
Dear Richard,
This is not yet the voting on the ballot. When it goes out, you can make your decision to support it or not. We need to overview the wording if the text is clear for better understanding and if it fits the specifications.
If you have any suggestion about the text of the ballot that makes it more clear, please write it down.
We need to prepare the text to go to the ballot not making new proposals. If you have proposals you need to turn to one of the CGG’s.
Otherwise, just check please some of the hulls regarding your concerns.
Thanks,
Peter
Dear All,
It seems to me that we stuck again, despite that we are over the deadline for the submission for the ballot wording.
Could you please make some efforts to finalize the ballots?
In the meantime, I have documented some measurements on my hull what is a common, popular type here in the EU.
The angle of the bottom and side and top is about 1.5 degrees offset of perpendicular. That makes about a 5 mm gap, a difference between the top and the bottom on one side. If we add it up it comes around 1cm divergence all together on a cross-section.
The surfaces are not even at all and there are bumps and warps everywhere, mainly at the bottom.
Although without any measuring device it is not visible at all. The paint is nice and you do not realize this much bias at all.
So, here is proof and we can also say that it is a common issue.
Thanks,
P.
this is steve’s copy
16. Hull cross sections must be rectangular. Fuselage side panel parallel projected planes intersecting with the deck or bottom parallel projected planes shall be 90 degrees, +- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
if the wording “rectangular” is removed ,another change is required to be made to description of Deck/Bottom, that change would require that wording to the point that deck and bottom must be flat and not convex . if not , nowhere are the decks and bottom required to be stated so currently. this would open up a new group of building issues to the specificatictions by definition rectangular is define as :
adjective
shaped like a rectangle
having or relating to right angles
mutually perpendicular rectangular coordinates
having a base or section shaped like a rectangle
we have to be very cautious with wording here.
having hull sections required to be rectangular with a tolerance would be as steve’s will avoid this issue and having tolerance here does not discount on intent of “rectanglular”
it might be all as simple as this suggested wording
16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed
on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.
I think this may cover Peter’s intent?
Thinking outside the box my only concern here is: in way of cockpit side panels could be angled or curved in a way (in section) that may have aero implications we are not thinking of….
jk5For simplicity wouldn’t be just enough:
“16. Fuselage side panels should be placed perpendicular to the bottom and the deck with a +/- 2 degree tolerance from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the outside top and bottom corner of the fuselage where the deck, bottom and side panel intersect. Concavities in the deck are not permitted. “
Wouldn’t it be sufficient for the required description?
My impressions of the previous wording:
– In the cockpit, the side panel surfaces are not part of this I think, as there are knees or ribs permitted, and might cover up the whole side panel and part of the bottom. ….Shall we add excluding cockpit surfaces?
– I still dont feel the “rectangle cross-section” definition covers the cockpit area.
– Why would it be necessary to define rectangle? When the side panels and deck, bottom defined right-angled then it is the same, isn’t it?
– The max radius defined here takes care of the issue mentioned by Jeff not to have round surfaces on the deck or sides.Peter, Jeff’s point is that the word rectangular implies that the flat surfaces of the rectangle must be flat. The hull sides can’t be curved from top to bottom, and the top and bottom surfaces of the hull can’t be curved from side to side. If we take out the rectangular statement how do we close that potential loophole?
I think Jeff’s last proposal covers it and also covers the cockpit question.
Steve
Peter, the spec with max radius between side panel to deck , and side panel to bottom applies to those intersections only
Need to reach a conclusion on the hull cross section proposal discussion.
Please look at this. currently myself and Steve are in agreement on the following text. Peter’s comment thinking that cockpit, knees, rails etc are not part of discussion is somewhat correct. However the subject here is part of “cross section tolerance” This applies specifically between to and from areas along fuselage. The following wording specifically excludes area in way of cockpit where there is no deck. this cleans it up
Only reservation I have is the issue of seat back “support”, at this time I consider that out side the constraints of the specification as other “structural member”
I believe this covers Peter’s intent of inserting a tolerance of the angles created between deck and bottom to side panels
this does not change angle that was specified originally by peter’s proposal
haven’t heard from the others lately or at all
would like to have this done, but correct. Definitely need some others to comment
16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed
on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.16. Hull outer surface cross sections must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow
to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern with exception in way of cockpit. A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed
on the outside top corner of the fuselage where the deck and side panel intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.
this is text which will be on ballotProposal for tiller to have “breakaway or release” action will need more time to get proper wording. Time has run out to get this to ballot in the next day or so . this will not be on upcoming ballot
We need not word a proposal in haste in order to make a deadline when the committee cannot get to a satisfactory concept put in writing
This should continue to be resolved with the goal to make a strong viable proposal , a new dedicated topic will be created to further discuss this properly since it was in a topic containing two proposals
JK
upon further review, and with conversation with Warren
I have changed up wording as such
16. Hull outer surface cross section must be rectangular +/- 2 degrees from a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the bow to a point 6’’ (153. mm) from the stern.
Exclusions: Cockpit surface, seat back, knees, rails, fittings, and hardware.
A maximum 1/4’’ (6.3 mm) radius is allowed on the corners of the fuselage where the deck / bottom and side panels intersect.
Concavities in the deck are not permitted.
reasoning; pervious wording of “exception of cockpit” could be confusing deleted that and added specific items I hope I have them all
One key word here is “outer” pertaining to surface outside of hull. This specification has no intention of controlling any aspect of inside the cockpit area. It is meant to pertain to the outer surface cross section created by side panel verticals surfaces relative to the horizontal deck / bottom surfaces along the entire hull less the exclusions front and rear
I also added the radius to the bottom of side panel/ bottom intersection, mainly for housekeeping
I do not believe this is in conflict with any existing interpretations
Please respond to this Immediately as it may be holding up the ballot to the class
thank you
jk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.