Recommended Posts

Man I need to build one of these!

I'll drive a kit to your front door. and supply the first six of microbrew.

 

 

how many in SW?

 

Which continent?

 

Not a bad deal at all! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man I need to build one of these!

 

I'll drive a kit to your front door. and supply the first six of microbrew.

 

 

how many in SW?

 

Which continent?

 

OAK lahoma be a good place to hold a North Americans. On one of those dam lakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know the deal with the i450 that was mentioned earlier on the i550 forums? A 14.5 foot Moth/550 crossover? Sounds f'ing awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is just a smaller version of the 550, probably 2 person with some weight in a bulb to help make it right-able.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont thinks so. that is a absolutely different deck and cockpit to the plans. i think this was what was being refered to about the front of the cockpit being opened up wider to make seating comfortable and hiking.

post-9614-1259129974_thumb.jpg

post-9614-1259130043_thumb.jpg

post-9614-1259130530_thumb.jpg

post-9614-1259130714_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... I think it is now (or soon to be) OFFICIAL!

 

5 boats are being built side, by side, by one after the other in PORTLAND OREGON! Home of fleet #1 perhaps?

 

Thanks to the Rivers West Facility and the first 5... more details soon...

 

If you are in or near Portland and you want to build a boat, we have the momentum to make it happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay... I think it is now (or soon to be) OFFICIAL!

 

5 boats are being built side, by side, by one after the other in PORTLAND OREGON! Home of fleet #1 perhaps?

 

Thanks to the Rivers West Facility and the first 5... more details soon...

 

If you are in or near Portland and you want to build a boat, we have the momentum to make it happen!

 

cool news!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kits are coming from Watershed Sailboats. We've got a great deal on the price till the end of year, so email us. Right now my supplier of ply is very happy with 120 sheets on order. We are very happy. you should get a kit and be VERY happy.

Thank you, Portland.

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome news about the Portland group build. That's what I cal fleet building. Good luck and have lots of fun! Oh, and publish lots of pictures too.

 

Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the i550's I've seen both on here, elsewhere on the internet or in the flesh are built from flat panels, yet nothing in the class rules prevent a panel being curved. Given the clause in the class rules states that if it isn't prohibited it is allowed, could you build a boat with curved hull panels? It makes the boat much stiffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was asking myself the same question but the rules say:

1.0 Intent

1.1 It is the intent of this rule to provide a level basis for racing to boats built

from the specifications of the i550 plans within the bounds of the i550

Sportboat rule.

 

Without seeing the plans, I don't know what the limit of this rule is. It would be nice if the rule prevented me for comissioning Paul Bieker to draw up a cheater hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering the same thing 12mo ago... I have the plans... I beleive the "Intent" and Mr. Reiter can correct me if I am wrong is that a "i550" can only be built from licened plan sets / kits from Watershed. It is a flat panel boat as originaly conceived by CB and then the rights were sold to TR.

 

If you were to build a boat with hollows / concavity that still meet the measurement points, it would still NOT be a i550 because it would not match the others visually nor was it constructed according to the design.

 

Great group of people though, I saw Kmac's 1st on November in Chicago. He has put a lot blood, sweat & tears into it and it shows.

 

Timing is everything Kevin ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intent of the 1550 rule is to encourage people to build to the plan set. Why would anyone want to change the shape of a boat before they have become fluent with the characteristics of the design?

OK, so if you are a shit hot designer and someone asks for a rule beater i550 you'd be nuts to design one. It is a WOFTAM. And if its off the pace, the designer looks the fool instead of the builder who commissioned it. No one remembers the builder who asked for the cheater boat. It is a losing proposition for any designer.

Remember,too, that this is an 18 foot simple, strong boat. The materials and methods are optimum for this size boat.

If the situation should occur, it will be solved.

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of the finished boats been on a scale? How close are people coming to being at min. weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there might be 5-7 boats WORLDWIDE that have been completed. I think there are variations in all the builds / deck layout. I am not sure if 20-30 lbs over will make much of a difference though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The intent of the 1550 rule is to encourage people to build to the plan set. Why would anyone want to change the shape of a boat before they have become fluent with the characteristics of the design?

OK, so if you are a shit hot designer and someone asks for a rule beater i550 you'd be nuts to design one. It is a WOFTAM. And if its off the pace, the designer looks the fool instead of the builder who commissioned it. No one remembers the builder who asked for the cheater boat. It is a losing proposition for any designer.

Remember,too, that this is an 18 foot simple, strong boat. The materials and methods are optimum for this size boat.

If the situation should occur, it will be solved.

T

I see you use the word 'intent' and 'encourage', yet the class rules are a really simple set of measurement points that include LOA and beam at both deck level and the chine as well as freeboard measurements. So as long as the boat meets those measurement points, then the boat conforms to the class rules.

 

I think you make the assumption that the boat is only a WOFTAM if it proves to be no faster than other boats.

 

How can a boat 'cheat' if it measures?

 

The reference to the plans in the class rule is 'intent'. If the class does not want to open itself up to significant development, then 'intent' needs to substituted with 'shall' IMHO. 'Intent' is optional, 'shall' is absolute.

 

I don't think you have to be some 'shit hot' designer to find some improvements in the basic hull shape. One of the great things about an i550 is with the hull being so cheap to build, it will encourage development that will be relatively affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you suggest then that the wording be changed ? The rules are posted at i550.org. We welcome input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.1 It is the intent of this rule to provide a level basis for racing to boats built

from the specifications of the i550 plans within the bounds of the i550

Sportboat rule.

 

from the specifications of the i550 plans

 

the shape is very specific in the plans

 

would station specs be appropriate describing angle of chine to topsides plus or minus 1 or 2 degrees?

 

I think that as time marches on delineations and clarifications will be necessary. Right now not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any of the finished boats been on a scale? How close are people coming to being at min. weight?

 

TTB went on the scale and If I remember is a couple pounds over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.1 It is the intent of this rule to provide a level basis for racing to boats built

from the specifications of the i550 plans within the bounds of the i550

Sportboat rule.

 

from the specifications of the i550 plans

 

the shape is very specific in the plans

 

would station specs be appropriate describing angle of chine to topsides plus or minus 1 or 2 degrees?

 

I think that as time marches on delineations and clarifications will be necessary. Right now not so much.

 

Just to put things 'out there' and granted the example is an extreme case, the attached falls within the overall length, beam (at both deck level and chine) and freeboard limits as prescribed by the class rules. What the example does do is exploit what can be done between those points and exploits the +/- 1" tolerance of those points themselves. The result is a very different animal to the i550 as 'intended' by the plans. The difference merely being 'curving' the hull panels.

 

The boat still retains its chine from stem to stern.

 

Perhaps a limit on any deviation from a flat panel may be worth considering?

550_sportsboat_front.pdf

550_Sportsboat_rear.pdf

550_sportsboat.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Obvious is well ...... rather obvious

 

 

heres your award ©

 

just peel the back off, stick it next to your tya name tag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Obvious is well ...... rather obvious

 

 

heres your award ©

 

just peel the back off, stick it next to your tya name tag

 

Does that mean the ' ®' on the end of your username is for retard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.1 It is the intent of this rule to provide a level basis for racing to boats built

from the specifications of the i550 plans within the bounds of the i550

Sportboat rule.

 

from the specifications of the i550 plans

 

the shape is very specific in the plans

 

would station specs be appropriate describing angle of chine to topsides plus or minus 1 or 2 degrees?

 

I think that as time marches on delineations and clarifications will be necessary. Right now not so much.

 

Just to put things 'out there' and granted the example is an extreme case, the attached falls within the overall length, beam (at both deck level and chine) and freeboard limits as prescribed by the class rules. What the example does do is exploit what can be done between those points and exploits the +/- 1" tolerance of those points themselves. The result is a very different animal to the i550 as 'intended' by the plans. The difference merely being 'curving' the hull panels.

 

The boat still retains its chine from stem to stern.

 

Perhaps a limit on any deviation from a flat panel may be worth considering?

 

In my opinion, those drawings do not represent the same boat that I have built. It does not look like it conforms to "the specifications of the i550 plans".

 

Both Tim R. and Chris have stated here and on the i550.org forums that this is not a "development" class. If you want to play with this gang, build you boat according to the plans. It really should be that simple. If the rules need to be changed to stop any speculation by potential builders then so be it. Tim R., Chris and Andrew are the ones who need to address that point.

 

Aren't you about to build 5+ boats there in Oregon? I would think you would want them to all be the same for "equal racing" since that is the point of this boat in the first place. You would also want the rest of us to come out for a North American championship some day I would think. And that won't happen if you have boats that differ from the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great group of people though, I saw Kmac's 1st on November in Chicago. He has put a lot blood, sweat & tears into it and it shows.

 

Timing is everything Kevin ;)

 

Thanks Timbo. I appreciated your sage advise. We are ready for spring here in Chicago. Jeff and I ran the sails up on Saturday (gorgeous 50 degree day) to compare notes. Nick from Oregon stopped by to check out my build too (He's in that group of 5 in OR and grew up in Evanston).

 

post-18673-1259597587_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.1 It is the intent of this rule to provide a level basis for racing to boats built

from the specifications of the i550 plans within the bounds of the i550

Sportboat rule.

 

from the specifications of the i550 plans

 

the shape is very specific in the plans

 

would station specs be appropriate describing angle of chine to topsides plus or minus 1 or 2 degrees?

 

I think that as time marches on delineations and clarifications will be necessary. Right now not so much.

 

Just to put things 'out there' and granted the example is an extreme case, the attached falls within the overall length, beam (at both deck level and chine) and freeboard limits as prescribed by the class rules. What the example does do is exploit what can be done between those points and exploits the +/- 1" tolerance of those points themselves. The result is a very different animal to the i550 as 'intended' by the plans. The difference merely being 'curving' the hull panels.

 

The boat still retains its chine from stem to stern.

 

Perhaps a limit on any deviation from a flat panel may be worth considering?

 

 

If you are going to build that boat, do yourself a favour and ditch the wings. Design concept has been around for years and you notice that it hasn't taken off like a house on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, those drawings do not represent the same boat that I have built. It does not look like it conforms to "the specifications of the i550 plans".

 

Both Tim R. and Chris have stated here and on the i550.org forums that this is not a "development" class. If you want to play with this gang, build you boat according to the plans. It really should be that simple. If the rules need to be changed to stop any speculation by potential builders then so be it. Tim R., Chris and Andrew are the ones who need to address that point.

 

Aren't you about to build 5+ boats there in Oregon? I would think you would want them to all be the same for "equal racing" since that is the point of this boat in the first place. You would also want the rest of us to come out for a North American championship some day I would think. And that won't happen if you have boats that differ from the rest.

As one of the group of 5 in Oregon, I can say that the class rules certainly have a "developmental" or "experimental" feel to them. We have talked within our community of interested owners about firming up some of the rules at least for a local fleet to improve the OD potential in our little part of the world. The biggest problem with the rules now, from some of our perspectives, is that they do allow for radical changes in hull form as well as other areas. There is the real potential of creating an arms race in a rapidly growing fleet where new boats make earlier boats obsolete by exploiting the vague class rules as written. Innovation has served some fleets well (Moth), it has also killed (or weakened) others. Sometimes you just have to better define the box that people are going to be allowed to play within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, those drawings do not represent the same boat that I have built. It does not look like it conforms to "the specifications of the i550 plans".

 

Both Tim R. and Chris have stated here and on the i550.org forums that this is not a "development" class. If you want to play with this gang, build you boat according to the plans. It really should be that simple. If the rules need to be changed to stop any speculation by potential builders then so be it. Tim R., Chris and Andrew are the ones who need to address that point.

 

Aren't you about to build 5+ boats there in Oregon? I would think you would want them to all be the same for "equal racing" since that is the point of this boat in the first place. You would also want the rest of us to come out for a North American championship some day I would think. And that won't happen if you have boats that differ from the rest.

As one of the group of 5 in Oregon, I can say that the class rules certainly have a "developmental" or "experimental" feel to them. We have talked within our community of interested owners about firming up some of the rules at least for a local fleet to improve the OD potential in our little part of the world. The biggest problem with the rules now, from some of our perspectives, is that they do allow for radical changes in hull form as well as other areas. There is the real potential of creating an arms race in a rapidly growing fleet where new boats make earlier boats obsolete by exploiting the vague class rules as written. Innovation has served some fleets well (Moth), it has also killed (or weakened) others. Sometimes you just have to better define the box that people are going to be allowed to play within.

If the situation should occur, it will be solved.

This worries me the most. Where there are known rules weaknesses or outright mistakes- where the wording of the rule is different than the author's stated intent- the rule team needs to FIX it first, before a boat exploits the written rule and needs to be retroactively "solved."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, those drawings do not represent the same boat that I have built. It does not look like it conforms to "the specifications of the i550 plans".

 

Both Tim R. and Chris have stated here and on the i550.org forums that this is not a "development" class. If you want to play with this gang, build you boat according to the plans. It really should be that simple. If the rules need to be changed to stop any speculation by potential builders then so be it. Tim R., Chris and Andrew are the ones who need to address that point.

 

Aren't you about to build 5+ boats there in Oregon? I would think you would want them to all be the same for "equal racing" since that is the point of this boat in the first place. You would also want the rest of us to come out for a North American championship some day I would think. And that won't happen if you have boats that differ from the rest.

As one of the group of 5 in Oregon, I can say that the class rules certainly have a "developmental" or "experimental" feel to them. We have talked within our community of interested owners about firming up some of the rules at least for a local fleet to improve the OD potential in our little part of the world. The biggest problem with the rules now, from some of our perspectives, is that they do allow for radical changes in hull form as well as other areas. There is the real potential of creating an arms race in a rapidly growing fleet where new boats make earlier boats obsolete by exploiting the vague class rules as written. Innovation has served some fleets well (Moth), it has also killed (or weakened) others. Sometimes you just have to better define the box that people are going to be allowed to play within.

If the situation should occur, it will be solved.

This worries me the most. Where there are known rules weaknesses or outright mistakes- where the wording of the rule is different than the author's stated intent- the rule team needs to FIX it first, before a boat exploits the written rule and needs to be retroactively "solved."

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules as they are written are vague in places to allow for some of what we have seen....a very creative variance of cockpits, decks, dog houses, rigs, rudders and keels. The very building process has forced a few variances of hull form above the waterline; some bulge slightly, some, like mine, flare slightly, but all are within the rule as it is written.

 

Rules are also a funny thing and some believe they should be stretched almost to the point of breaking. Radically changing the profiles of the bulkheads that ends up radically changing the shape of the hull will do nothing but give you a new boat that really isn’t a i550; perhaps it fits the rules to some extent, but common sense says it doesn't fit the intent.

 

Build your own i550, the rules will take care of themselves as more and more boats get completed and more questions get asked and answered. Part of the fun will always be comparing how each of us choose to tackle each and every little detail and how it effects the boat. Perhaps some day there will be a killer i550 version that all must have to win every regatta, but we are thankfully years away from that. Meanwhile, no worries, mon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As one of the group of 5 in Oregon, I can say that the class rules certainly have a "developmental" or "experimental" feel to them. We have talked within our community of interested owners about firming up some of the rules at least for a local fleet to improve the OD potential in our little part of the world. The biggest problem with the rules now, from some of our perspectives, is that they do allow for radical changes in hull form as well as other areas. There is the real potential of creating an arms race in a rapidly growing fleet where new boats make earlier boats obsolete by exploiting the vague class rules as written. Innovation has served some fleets well (Moth), it has also killed (or weakened) others. Sometimes you just have to better define the box that people are going to be allowed to play within.

 

TG,

 

I think we agree on this point from both sides of the project time line. Me being at the end and you being at the starting line. This is not a 200lb dingy made out of 3 sheets of ply though. The i550 is a substantial sized boat and building one is a large undertaking. Even if it's relatively cheap in dollars, it is not cheap in terms of effort, sacrifice and as Timbo put it "blood, sweat and tears". Your group build is very exciting and as clownfish proved, you can build a boat pretty fast if you have lots of hands working on it. However, keep in mind that there are guys all over the place who have been building their boats one Sunday afternoon at a time by themselves. That type of builder should not be shut out of the class for any reason.

 

The tolerances in the rules were added to allow for the inaccuracies of individual builders. They were not added so that builders could tweak the hull form as they see fit. What makes the i550 what it is is the hull form and the rig dimensions. In my humble opinion, those are the things that should not be allowed to be changed. There is plenty of "other areas" that can and should be optimized.

 

I also feel that the rules should be modified to make this point crystal clear to all current and future plan set owners. This is the 3rd or 4th time that this exact same discussion has come up.

 

Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rules as they are written are vague in places to allow for some of what we have seen....a very creative variance of cockpits, decks, dog houses, rigs, rudders and keels. The very building process has forced a few variances of hull form above the waterline; some bulge slightly, some, like mine, flare slightly, but all are within the rule as it is written.

 

Rules are also a funny thing and some believe they should be stretched almost to the point of breaking. Radically changing the profiles of the bulkheads that ends up radically changing the shape of the hull will do nothing but give you a new boat that really isn’t a i550; perhaps it fits the rules to some extent, but common sense says it doesn't fit the intent.

 

Build your own i550, the rules will take care of themselves as more and more boats get completed and more questions get asked and answered. Part of the fun will always be comparing how each of us choose to tackle each and every little detail and how it effects the boat. Perhaps some day there will be a killer i550 version that all must have to win every regatta, but we are thankfully years away from that. Meanwhile, no worries, mon.

 

One way to end speculation about what is allowed is to specify exactly how a i550 hull would be measured. My personal favorite is a cradle that the boat is lowered into and must be within 1/2 inch of in every way. That would ensure a fairly consistent hull form from boat to boat. Also, if you cut your panels according to the plans and join them so they touch at the chine you really can't help but end up with a i550. Installing frames at the specified locations will seal the deal.

 

I'm a little nervous about the "it will sort itself out" approach though as we are getting much closer to a critical mass of boat. It's hard to keep explaining the "Intent". Over time the "intent" will be changed to fit what ever a particular builder wants to do.

 

Kevin.

 

btw, my boat flares out at the transom and between 53 and 89 in the transition area. There is no way to avoid that as the flat hull panel is fit snug up to the frames. I think it's kick ass cool personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commitee of three will be coorresponding on this. the Three are Andrew Clauson (TTB) Chris Beckwith, and Tim Reiter (Timber)I have been aware that the time to examine these issues would come. Give me a week or so to bring the proposal for shape delineations to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTB's father sailed in an international class that has undergone significant development over 60 years. This class had rules with holes so big you could drive a bus through them, but this development has kept the class alive over time. The i550's class rules, while kept deliberately simple in keeping with the concept of the boat, are wide open to interpretation and exploitation. They are by far open to much more exploitation than the boat TTB's old man once raced.

 

Almost every good boat that has stood the test of time has allowed sustainable & controlled development. Examples are the Olympic Star (98 years old), the scow classes such as the A & E (even older), the International Dragon, Flying 15, Flying Dutchman and 505 to name a few. All these examples are one-design classes.

 

The i550 has the potential to become a great, moderate cost class, but as the class rules stand it is only a matter of time before someone produces a boat that meets the class rules to the letter, yet will make every existing boat obsolete by a considerable margin. The existing rules are a good platform to work from. What can possibly be considered is limiting what is allowed between the hull measurement points. Limiting the depth of concavity or convexity of the hull panels to a manageable tolerance of say +/- 1". Limiting the amount of corrector weights allowed, and nominating their position may be another. It is only a matter of time before someone substitutes composite panels for plywood in the hull structure and produces a boat 20% lighter than anything else. This weight can be put in the middle of the boat to bring the boat up to weight and produce an advantage.

 

If the class is to position itself as a 'limited development' class then the class rules need to reflect that whilst still maintaining tolerances suitable for home building.

 

With the utmost respect to the creator(s) of the i550, not many boats have a class rule that fits on a single A4 page. In most cases it is 10 times that or even more and presumed that is not necessarily the direction or the desire of the class creators.

 

As they stand, anybody who thinks the i550 is even remotely one-design is IMHO dreaming. The international Moth I think has more class rules than the i550.

 

Having seen an i550 in the flesh here in Melbourne, I'm very interested in building one myself, but it would be built to the class rule as opposed to the plans. Jurors look at class rules when faced with measurement issues. Unless the rule says 'shall' the requirement to meet the rule is absolute and not open to interpretation. 'Intent' is subjective and in the eyes of a juror, can largely be interpreted as 'fair game'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TTB's father sailed in an international class that has undergone significant development over 60 years. This class had rules with holes so big you could drive a bus through them, but this development has kept the class alive over time. The i550's class rules, while kept deliberately simple in keeping with the concept of the boat, are wide open to interpretation and exploitation. They are by far open to much more exploitation than the boat TTB's old man once raced.

 

Almost every good boat that has stood the test of time has allowed sustainable & controlled development. Examples are the Olympic Star (98 years old), the scow classes such as the A & E (even older), the International Dragon, Flying 15, Flying Dutchman and 505 to name a few. All these examples are one-design classes.

 

The i550 has the potential to become a great, moderate cost class, but as the class rules stand it is only a matter of time before someone produces a boat that meets the class rules to the letter, yet will make every existing boat obsolete by a considerable margin. The existing rules are a good platform to work from. What can possibly be considered is limiting what is allowed between the hull measurement points. Limiting the depth of concavity or convexity of the hull panels to a manageable tolerance of say +/- 1". Limiting the amount of corrector weights allowed, and nominating their position may be another. It is only a matter of time before someone substitutes composite panels for plywood in the hull structure and produces a boat 20% lighter than anything else. This weight can be put in the middle of the boat to bring the boat up to weight and produce an advantage.

 

If the class is to position itself as a 'limited development' class then the class rules need to reflect that whilst still maintaining tolerances suitable for home building.

 

With the utmost respect to the creator(s) of the i550, not many boats have a class rule that fits on a single A4 page. In most cases it is 10 times that or even more and presumed that is not necessarily the direction or the desire of the class creators.

 

As they stand, anybody who thinks the i550 is even remotely one-design is IMHO dreaming. The international Moth I think has more class rules than the i550.

 

Having seen an i550 in the flesh here in Melbourne, I'm very interested in building one myself, but it would be built to the class rule as opposed to the plans. Jurors look at class rules when faced with measurement issues. Unless the rule says 'shall' the requirement to meet the rule is absolute and not open to interpretation. 'Intent' is subjective and in the eyes of a juror, can largely be interpreted as 'fair game'.

 

And I can see that you and I, Mr. Gorilla, are not on the same page. The common thread between every i550 is the specifications of the plan set. The shape of the hull panels, joined together at the chines and held within the class rule measurement points by frames at specified locations. That build process defines the i550 hull form. That's what you are talking about changing. And that's what I think should be the same. Hull form, minimum total weight, maximum keel weight, maximum rig dimensions. That's what the rules should protect. And that's the crux of the issue. How does one write a rule that is simple for those that are happy to build to the plan set and controls those that would rather not build to the plan.

 

The rule states "boats built from the specifications of the plan set". That effectively makes the 20+ page plan set part of the rules. And, I'm not sure how you build to the rule and not the plan set and still have an i550.

 

I look forward to hearing from Tim R., Chris and Andrew on this issue. Not sure what good further debate will do for any of us.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, in all honesty, I don't think there's much of a disconnect here.

 

What Kevin has delineated, adherence to the plan set, is what makes it an i550. Anything else would be....uh...something else! Maybe faster, maybe better looking,

maybe cheaper to build, whatever, it's still not an i550.

 

Rereading the class rules, I don't see how anyone could build the 550 shown above and think it's an i550.

 

tf

edit: oops I think I just made my boat illegal due to the wood I sistered on to frame 53 to match the curve of the topsides :lol: oh well, phuck it.

post-768-1259684525_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The commitee of three will be coorresponding on this. the Three are Andrew Clauson (TTB) Chris Beckwith, and Tim Reiter (Timber)I have been aware that the time to examine these issues would come. Give me a week or so to bring the proposal for shape delineations to you.

 

 

As you guys are chatting about shapes, please also consider materials - I'd already been considering how easy it might be to use composite bulkheads or decks, and how much weight there is to be saved in the ends of the boat that might be added around the keelbox. I'd say that all structural elements should be plywood or ply and fibers or wood, (allowing, of course, some noodling around with the shape of the seat corners) even though I believe the rules as written I believe specifically allow composites... just a thought from a prospective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TTB's father sailed in an international class that has undergone significant development over 60 years. This class had rules with holes so big you could drive a bus through them, but this development has kept the class alive over time. The i550's class rules, while kept deliberately simple in keeping with the concept of the boat, are wide open to interpretation and exploitation. They are by far open to much more exploitation than the boat TTB's old man once raced.

 

Almost every good boat that has stood the test of time has allowed sustainable & controlled development. Examples are the Olympic Star (98 years old), the scow classes such as the A & E (even older), the International Dragon, Flying 15, Flying Dutchman and 505 to name a few. All these examples are one-design classes.

 

The i550 has the potential to become a great, moderate cost class, but as the class rules stand it is only a matter of time before someone produces a boat that meets the class rules to the letter, yet will make every existing boat obsolete by a considerable margin. The existing rules are a good platform to work from. What can possibly be considered is limiting what is allowed between the hull measurement points. Limiting the depth of concavity or convexity of the hull panels to a manageable tolerance of say +/- 1". Limiting the amount of corrector weights allowed, and nominating their position may be another. It is only a matter of time before someone substitutes composite panels for plywood in the hull structure and produces a boat 20% lighter than anything else. This weight can be put in the middle of the boat to bring the boat up to weight and produce an advantage.

 

If the class is to position itself as a 'limited development' class then the class rules need to reflect that whilst still maintaining tolerances suitable for home building.

 

With the utmost respect to the creator(s) of the i550, not many boats have a class rule that fits on a single A4 page. In most cases it is 10 times that or even more and presumed that is not necessarily the direction or the desire of the class creators.

 

As they stand, anybody who thinks the i550 is even remotely one-design is IMHO dreaming. The international Moth I think has more class rules than the i550.

 

Having seen an i550 in the flesh here in Melbourne, I'm very interested in building one myself, but it would be built to the class rule as opposed to the plans. Jurors look at class rules when faced with measurement issues. Unless the rule says 'shall' the requirement to meet the rule is absolute and not open to interpretation. 'Intent' is subjective and in the eyes of a juror, can largely be interpreted as 'fair game'.

 

And I can see that you and I, Mr. Gorilla, are not on the same page. The common thread between every i550 is the specifications of the plan set. The shape of the hull panels, joined together at the chines and held within the class rule measurement points by frames at specified locations. That build process defines the i550 hull form. That's what you are talking about changing. And that's what I think should be the same. Hull form, minimum total weight, maximum keel weight, maximum rig dimensions. That's what the rules should protect. And that's the crux of the issue. How does one write a rule that is simple for those that are happy to build to the plan set and controls those that would rather not build to the plan.

 

The rule states "boats built from the specifications of the plan set". That effectively makes the 20+ page plan set part of the rules. And, I'm not sure how you build to the rule and not the plan set and still have an i550.

 

I look forward to hearing from Tim R., Chris and Andrew on this issue. Not sure what good further debate will do for any of us.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

I happen to agree with Kevin, that every dimension in the plan that doesn't have an opt out clause in the rules (materials, interior, rig type, cabin style, cockpit), should be respected. But I think that MG's position is not an unreasonable one. I think rules should not allow opposite interpretations to reasonably be read from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edit: oops I think I just made my boat illegal due to the wood I sistered on to frame 53 to match the curve of the topsides :lol: oh well, phuck it.

 

Imho, the topsides within an inch of the frame shouldn't be a problem. I think that falls into the "spirit/intent/four corners" of the class rules of building to the plans to the best of the builders ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The commitee of three will be coorresponding on this. the Three are Andrew Clauson (TTB) Chris Beckwith, and Tim Reiter (Timber)I have been aware that the time to examine these issues would come. Give me a week or so to bring the proposal for shape delineations to you.

 

 

As you guys are chatting about shapes, please also consider materials - I'd already been considering how easy it might be to use composite bulkheads or decks, and how much weight there is to be saved in the ends of the boat that might be added around the keelbox. I'd say that all structural elements should be plywood or ply and fibers or wood, (allowing, of course, some noodling around with the shape of the seat corners) even though I believe the rules as written I believe specifically allow composites... just a thought from a prospective.

 

 

Tim R will have to speak to this one more fully. As I understand it, there was a desire to allow the option for a fiberglass hull down the road. Not sure how that conforms to the "intent" of a home-built one design class. Again we get into a grey area pretty fast.

 

Currently, parts of TTB's deck are honeycomb sandwich of some kind. The balance of the completed boats that I've seen use all plywood panels as far as I know. There has been much talk about other options of materials, but I don't think anyones gone there yet. I would be in favor of a change to require the hull panels be of wood ply construction personally. That was in the rules when I bought my plans. But I think that's a bigger can of worms.

 

Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a dog in this fight so it may make it easer to see where everyone is coming from. i think everyone is actually on the same page but they don’t quite realise it. Without having seen a plan set some of this is speculation.... Every dimension in the plan set has a tolerance, it is impossible to have an absolute value, likewise straight lines will have a straightness tolerance and every flat panel a flatness tolerance. Since this boat is aimed at home builders these tolerances may be reasonably high some may even be +- 1" ?? Now I’m guessing that the curvy boat was drawn with certain dimensions at one or other of the extremes of this tolerance so in fact it would still be 'made to the plans' To stop this the tolerances on the plans need to be reduced and or explicitly defined, such as maximum concavity and convexity, straightness, flatness etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word 'intent' roughly means to make an effort. How much of an effort opens itself to interpretation and hence part of this discussion.

 

The use of the word 'shall' or 'will' in class rules eliminates any ambiguity. There must be compliance with the specific rule, not just an effort.

 

To have a rule that says "Anything not expressly prohibited in this rule, is allowed" makes the word 'intent' effectively useless.

 

As a measurer of a couple of international classes, the class rules 3 & 4 define the 'box' that an i550 hull and foils needs to fit into. Builders have already stated here their deviations from the intent of the plans be it by circumstance or otherwise. If the boat fits into the box, then under ISAF guidelines, the boat can very much be classed as an i550. The problem of a 'cheat boat' that fits in the box will lay with the class administrators, not the boat owner.

 

It is naive to think that exploitation of class rules are 'years away'. It could quite possibly be happening now in some way as we have this discussion. The success of the i550 is inspirational, but unless some class rules are reviewed and reinforced, an arms race is merely a matter of when rather than if once the the class starts racing as a fleet at local, regional or national level. It's human nature to want to have a competitive advantage.

 

I'm truly interested in building a boat, but I don't want to be building obsolesence from day 1. I'm also very happy to contribute my thoughts and experience to beefing up the class rules whether it be publicly or privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have a dog in this fight so it may make it easer to see where everyone is coming from. i think everyone is actually on the same page but they don't quite realise it. Without having seen a plan set some of this is speculation.... Every dimension in the plan set has a tolerance, it is impossible to have an absolute value, likewise straight lines will have a straightness tolerance and every flat panel a flatness tolerance. Since this boat is aimed at home builders these tolerances may be reasonably high some may even be +- 1" ?? Now I'm guessing that the curvy boat was drawn with certain dimensions at one or other of the extremes of this tolerance so in fact it would still be 'made to the plans' To stop this the tolerances on the plans need to be reduced and or explicitly defined, such as maximum concavity and convexity, straightness, flatness etc

 

You're spot on Cheesy...

 

The boat drawn was designed to simply fit into the 'box' the class rules define.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the rules are being questioned and we will get answers. Recently during my build, I realized an interpretation of how to measure in a boat made a big difference to how exactly I was going to position something. An e-mail to Tim got an answer, perhaps not the exact answer I wanted, but one that everyone could live with.

 

All of us early builders have put ourselves at some amount of risk. The future could bring a change to the rules that make our boats less desirable. This is the same risk everyone who buys in early to a new class takes. If you aren't willing to take that risk, you need to wait a bit before you join the fun. For me, and I would think many others, the newness and among the first is a large part of the draw to the boat and the class. Diverting too much from the established norm, as loosely defined in the various blogs and the offered plans, will put the builder at an even greater risk.

 

We have exactly 5 total boats sailing (four in Aus. and one in the US.) and about 4 or 5 all but ready to sail. Not that many in the scheme of things. We are just getting to see how the boats sail period let alone what works the best or not. Or what rules need firmed up or not. Perhaps some statement as to having to use the original design as a basis for the build could be in order. Or perhaps some definition of the beam at the chine to somehow insure that the below water hull shape is standardized in some fashion. ( Is this the same as TimFord suggested?) I’ll leave that up to the “Big Three”.

 

We also must remember that this is mostly a volunteer effort for this “Big Three”, the guys who have brought this emerging class into existence. Andrew is the builder/ owner of hull 1, Chris is also a volunteer as the designer and then Tim (and Susan) , who may someday profit from all this, but today, it is only a labor of love. I, for one, am more that willing to put my faith in them and know that they will do the right thing for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what else to say on this rules topic. The i550 is not a box rule class. If it were, there would be no mention of the plan set in the rules. It's a home built one-design class. Either you are building to the design and respecting the designer or you are not. It's not that hard to cut a plywood panel within a 1/4" of the plan dimensions. It's not that hard to zip tie the boat together (I did it in one day). Build a boat and let's go sailing. Pacific coast championships in the Gorge in 2012 sounds like fun to me. That's the general idea here.

 

Since none of us are among the trio that current oversee the class rules, I think this discussion has run it's course for now. We are in a wait and see what they say mode. I look forward to a time when we have a i550 class association, a board, a rules committee and all that fun stuff. Hopefully that is something that will actually happening soon.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not that hard to cut a plywood panel within a 1/4" of the plan dimensions.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

 

That is exactly right, and as such if the plan set is used as part of the rules so to speak it should be made clear what the tolerance on all of the critical linear measurements are. The size of the tolerance could get tricky, on one hand it has to be easily achivable by the average builder yet on the other hand you want it as small as possible to ensure that the hull forms are as close as possible. Essentially each measurement has its own 'box' if the box is big enough someone can intentionally build to one corner of it as the box gets smaller the target gets closer to the middle to ensure that the finished product is still within the 'box'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the i550 class wants to have a 'restricted' hull form, then the class rules may need some work on them to reflect that. Right or wrong, the way ISAF sees things is that the use of the word 'intent' is nearly unenforceable because it is too subjective. The class may need to consider wording to the effect of 'The builder of each yacht shall conform to plan 123 or ABC' to ensure hull forms stay reasonably consistent.

 

Some suggestions to help close loophles:

 

The plans may need revision to show minimum & maximum tolerances at each station or measurement point. How large those tolerances are is not for me to decide, but +/- 1" is at the top end of the scale I suggest and plenty for both the home builder and the 'tweaker' room to play whilst keeping current boats in the frame.

 

Place a limit on any concavity or convexity in any hull panel below the sheerline. Again a +/-1" tolerance may be more than generous. All that's needed then is a straight edge and a couple of tape measures to sort that out.

 

Define clearly how the boat is to be measured. That way everyone puts their tape measure in the same place to start from and helps remove any unintentional errors or abnormalities.

 

It is still possible to keep the rules simple, but close out a great deal of ambiguity.

 

This is all really healthy discussion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pacific coast championships in the Gorge in 2012 sounds like fun to me. That's the general idea here.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

Pac Coast Champs? Hell yeah! In Cascade Locks (aka the Gorge), but in 2011! It is supposed to be the best place to sail in North America after all. :*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The #107 had some success in its home waters this last weekend. Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

 

 

www.canberrayachtclub.com.au/results/200...0Canberra/series.htm

 

We thought Gybe Set ought to know. Also, the boat sails with an undersize rig IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
errayachtclub.com.au/results/200...0Canberra/series.htm

 

We thought Gybe Set ought to know.

 

Hah!

Incidentally, I'm abandoning my i550 for a Hartley 16.

 

tf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crikey Tim

 

don't jump too soon, Tonka #107 has the runs on the board ! fairly overwhelming result

A sportsboat cat amongst the TY pigeons so to speak, thanks Timber I would have missed this turkey shoot

 

an infamous Hartley design Alcheringa was creaming the oa corrected results though until a last (counting) heat DNC!

 

the 2 woodies leading the Plastics in the big event!

 

City of Canberra Cup overall

post-3212-1260318752_thumb.jpg

 

note1: is that she was giving time to every design in the fleet off .746 ! Some a 1/4 as long again and sailed by class veterans & stalwarts,

 

note2: she achieved fastest time every race /2a: LBG is a tricky place to sail and quite a few laps involved in 2hr odd races

 

note3: some of those mid-size trailable designs are known to be of decent performance and have likely never had to worry about a 5.5mtr boat before !

 

Alcheringa Hartley 18 MA, Redback Castle 650, Pathfinder Adams 21, Megagem Gem 550, 107 Tonka I550, Wisdom II Castle 650, Gemini Gem 550, Mischief Castle 550, Gemma Gem 550, Beau Bateau Sonata 6, Finesse Farr 6000, Gomez Adams 21, Fly Navy Too Timpenny 670, Minimus Timpenny 670, Billie Adams 21, Blu & Me Sonata6.7mki, Avant Garde BeneteauF/c7, Get Over It Castle 650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure your Hartley isn't protested for measurement issues, and it was an 18.

 

Not only undersized, but chute less as well.

 

Bring on SMS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey ... I'm probably hijacking... and I shall pay for my sins in time.

 

but here is my question ... Is it class groovy if a guy decides to build one of these and make a smooth radius cabin top a'la glue lam beam construction with sitka spruce 1/16" veneers maybe a little fiber ... maybe using the cutts and case method ? http://www.cuttsandcase.com/patented_method.html

 

Edit: kev fiber in the longitudinal along the cabin top ... not on the hoops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey ... I'm probably hijacking... and I shall pay for my sins in time.

 

but here is my question ... Is it class groovy if a guy decides to build one of these and make a smooth radius cabin top a'la glue lam beam construction with sitka spruce 1/16" veneers maybe a little fiber ... maybe using the cutts and case method ? http://www.cuttsandcase.com/patented_method.html

 

Edit: kev fiber in the longitudinal along the cabin top ... not on the hoops

Yes. Specifically optional in the rules are cabin (or lack of) and deck, interior/structure, and rig section and material. There's a change afoot to limit the hull panels to 1/4" minimum ply.

 

But you've got three separate ideas there don't you? Glu-lam a brand of architectural beam (maybe you mean laminated deck beams?), 1/16" veneer implies cold molding, and C&C method is sorta inside out ye olde carvel construction. If you want a smooth radius look, I'd guess that cold moulded or fiber/foam/fiber would be best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid Knot!

 

laminated beams for cabin deck beams but with 2 1/8 lauan ply sheets over that ... Kev running inter-laminate through the beams ... any deck pressure puts them into tension , also on the longitudinal inter- lauan panel... high modulus

 

PM Me tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just make sure your Hartley isn't protested for measurement issues, and it was an 18.

 

Not only undersized, but chute less as well.

 

Bring on SMS.

 

 

oops yeah, I meant 18 not 16.

in any rate I was just kidding. Cool little retro boats though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a new construction guide with a bit of history about how the i550 evolved.

 

i550.org , files , construction guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is a new construction guide with a bit of history about how the i550 evolved.

 

i550.org , files , construction guide.

 

Thanks for the copy you had sent over Timber!

 

It is great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how long does it take to learn a bit of grace with the glue? Or am I doomed to never remember that scratching an itch will just have to wait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how long does it take to learn a bit of grace with the glue? Or am I doomed to never remember that scratching an itch will just have to wait?

 

300 batches or 1 complete boat, which ever comes first. Getting it in your hair is probably the least fun of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how long does it take to learn a bit of grace with the glue? Or am I doomed to never remember that scratching an itch will just have to wait?

 

When it gets fun is when you're dealing with a big piece of cloth in a leafy backyard on a gusty day. TyVek coveralls become a ghillie suit pretty quickly.

post-768-1260476804_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SoI take the operative phrase is "Doomed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoI take the operative phrase is "Doomed"?

 

'Chance favors the prepared mind' - Louis Pasteur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Jan and Meade like the design and simplicity of build ... we are code red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now WEST would be the perfect partner for this class, and could work both ways

 

just get a 'build' dvd out there in the kit/plans, full of the appropriate WEST products !

 

a greater synergy than Mumm and the f30 for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Update: Jan and Meade like the design and simplicity of build ... we are code red

 

They should, I'm singlehandedly boosting their gross receipts....I should just sign my paycheck over.

Them and Jamestown D, who I think is top-notch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are these Jan and Mead guys anyway........? ;)

 

 

 

OK, just kidding.

TR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're thinking of John Dean, Nixon's White House Counsel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last I heard, the Tribunal passed the task on to the Beneteau 36.7 Class org. to iron out the wrinkles.

Not exactly..

 

Revision 2 of the rules was posted as of December 1, 2009 on the .org site. Should be pretty clear what was changed to close loop holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, kmak.

Right now I am the color of meranti plywood after about 8:30 am every day. cutting 6 kits at a time adds up to a lot of pieces. Sort of looking like the cheshire cat , brite smile and the whites of my eyes are the only not brown things in the entire shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just joshin' about the 36.7 class, of course.

ANy them-there Kits going to anywhere near the Chesapeake, Timber? Can't believe what a bunch of wussies inhabit these parts...."weeeelllll, i'd LIKE to build one, but my wife thinks we should add on a sunroom, first"

 

JFC....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested, I have compiled a map of active builds:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp....648438&z=2

 

I based in on all of the blogs I could find and notes sent from the i550.org forum. I know there is stuff going on the EU. If you are not on the map (and want to be), PM me with your hull#, boat name, and location.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those interested, I have compiled a map of active builds:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp....648438&z=2

 

I based in on all of the blogs I could find and notes sent from the i550.org forum. I know there is stuff going on the EU. If you are not on the map (and want to be), PM me with your hull#, boat name, and location.

 

Jeff

Very cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those interested, I have compiled a map of active builds:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp....648438&z=2

 

I based in on all of the blogs I could find and notes sent from the i550.org forum. I know there is stuff going on the EU. If you are not on the map (and want to be), PM me with your hull#, boat name, and location.

 

Jeff

 

1. So how many have actually been completed other than TTB?

2. What's the actual build time in man hours for those that have made it to the water?

 

I was hot to build one a couple years back until my kid went to college, the job got extra stressful and my wife got laid off. Now revisiting this forum, I'm wondering what happened to the promised 250-300 hrs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have kept track of our time on hull 130. Counting the lofting, the redoes because we changed our minds, the figuring out how to do something like a different mast step, custom rudder fittings and rounding the cockpit edges, as well as the time to order everything, finding that deal on e-bay and the like, we have about 200 hours in at the halfway point. We are also glassing both sides of the thinner ply and making moulds for a couple of things for the next hull. So it looks like about 400 part time hours. “Part time” in itself takes longer to get anything accomplished. Full time would be a lot less time and most likely hit below 250 hours pretty easily. Staying with the boat as designed would help to. However, the extra time to play with the new cockpit or cabin is fun time and therefore, well spent. Once our first hull is complete, hull 206 should be supported financially and done almost full time and then we can see how fast one can be built. The last one finished in Australia was done in, I believe, 4 1/2 months part time?

 

Others can confirm, but I believe a total of five boats have been launched. Four in Aus. and one in the states. At a guess, this Spring should see about ten or twelve more here in the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it looks like about 400 part time hours. “Part time” in itself takes longer to get anything accomplished. Full time would be a lot less time and most likely hit below 250 hours pretty easily. Staying with the boat as designed would help to. However, the extra time to play with the new cockpit or cabin is fun time and therefore, well spent.

 

That sounds pretty accurate. I agree that the extent to which you adhere to the plan set helps keep the total hours down. Another factor is the amount of help you have with the build. Two or three people working together systemically can really get the tabbing done in a hurry. I've had almost no other hands-on with mine, and the progress has been slower, I believe, due to that factor (and also building in an outdoor, unheated structure in a location adversely effected by this persistant global-cooling thing we have been experiencing for the past 5-6 years...yeah, I know, take it to PA).

 

This sure isn't a canoe or a kayak...it's a pretty big project, so I think the expectations of the time needed to complete the build should be realistic. It is a project where, for the most part, progress shows up pretty quickly and you get sucked into a very high level of enthusiasm b/c the damn thing looks so cool after just a few days labor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The year is ending with growth in the i550 Class. 273 plan sets as of today. Also Portland Oregon has jumped in with both feet and their 5 kits ship today. Watershed has 1 more kit ready to ship so get in on the year end deal. So if you are inclined to get a club or group build going now is the time to ante up. They are cheaper by the half dozen, one dozen, one gross........

Tim Reiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone out there have a part number or specific item description for the glass mat they used to skin the hull and MOST importantly, how much material you needed??

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The year is ending with growth in the i550 Class. 273 plan sets as of today. Also Portland Oregon has jumped in with both feet and their 5 kits ship today. Watershed has 1 more kit ready to ship so get in on the year end deal. So if you are inclined to get a club or group build going now is the time to ante up. They are cheaper by the half dozen, one dozen, one gross........

Tim Reiter

Cheaper by the half dozen is right! We found that 55 gallons of resin (enough for 7.5 boats) is basically a push vs. Buying it individually for 4 boats. Anyone else in Portland wants to jump on the wagon, we start building this weekend hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone out there have a part number or specific item description for the glass mat they used to skin the hull and MOST importantly, how much material you needed??

 

Thanks!

 

As I recall, I went with US Composites 6oz E glass, pn FG-C0660 (60" width). I glassed the entire hull (fore-aft) with two pieces (seam down the centerline).

 

I am racking my brain to remember how much. I am fairly certain that I order 25 yds for the whole boat, and literally came up one foot short, so i had to patch in half of the transom with a scrap.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kits left Pagosa Springs this afternoon.

 

also the 4 inch Biaxial is 50 yds. by list, is it enough or should we recommend more ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOOPS! hold on I should not trust my memory.

 

The Glue and glass list:

 

7 gallons epoxy

metering pumps

 

6 oz glass fabric 60 inch x 20 yds.

4 inch biaxial ~7 oz x 20 yds

2 inch glass cloth tape x 50 yds

4 inch glass cloth tape x 50 yds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone out there have a part number or specific item description for the glass mat they used to skin the hull and MOST importantly, how much material you needed??

 

Thanks!

 

As I recall, I went with US Composites 6oz E glass, pn FG-C0660 (60" width). I glassed the entire hull (fore-aft) with two pieces (seam down the centerline).

 

I am racking my brain to remember how much. I am fairly certain that I order 25 yds for the whole boat, and literally came up one foot short, so i had to patch in half of the transom with a scrap.

 

Jeff

Thanks for the info! It just seemed like 25yds was a LOT of material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone out there have a part number or specific item description for the glass mat they used to skin the hull and MOST importantly, how much material you needed??

 

Thanks!

 

As I recall, I went with US Composites 6oz E glass, pn FG-C0660 (60" width). I glassed the entire hull (fore-aft) with two pieces (seam down the centerline).

 

I am racking my brain to remember how much. I am fairly certain that I order 25 yds for the whole boat, and literally came up one foot short, so i had to patch in half of the transom with a scrap.

 

Jeff

Thanks for the info! It just seemed like 25yds was a LOT of material.

 

Looking at timber's post above, I might have ordered 20yds. I just can't seem to find the record of the transaction. I can dig tomorrow to try to track it down, if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites