Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Jacksonville, FL

Recent Profile Visitors

5,594 profile views
  1. Keel up or down, looks great on the water!
  2. So of the 6 that planned to be there, 2 had family medical emergencies and bailed last minute, and 1 decided to do the R2AK... That left 3 boats... All PDX boats... Let's just call them #1, #2 & #4 to protect the guilty...We left RYC under main and sailed up wind out of the harbor and then close reached up past the bridge to the starting area. It was cold and blowing high-teens with gusts around 20 and it was lumpy and confused. We were in the 4th start and it was tough to spot the "D" flag on the signal boat to get our sequence. Downwind start... No kites until your start signal. We were
  3. http://plywood.boatbuildercentral.com/products.php?id=1 They seem to be the most reasonable and reasonably close.
  4. While I would not use fir these days, you can opt for lessor cost plywood and still be OK. THe birch and mystery wood chinese plywoods you can find locally are often 5 ply and use the same glues. The ones I have used have been void free. THey are also finished differently as they are sanded from 6mm to 5.2 mm, making the top and bottom veneers a bit thin. I would only use them if you glass both sides, which does add stiffness but also negates the weight savings and the cost savings in the end. I used them because at the time, frieght was a deal breaker so availablity and the opportunity fo
  5. Oh, come on, we all know that to be a millionare in the boat business, you have to start out being a billionare. Just the way it is. And that was all I got out of what Couch posted. That old running joke. But, the real issue is that all of us have to go and open presents in a couple of days then eat turkey, ham, or in my case, prime rib, until we think we will burst and then try to go sailing and work it off. I feel bad for those of you in the frozen north. You may have to go sking to work it off. That never worked for me as my fondest memories of sking always seem to be the warm bar aft
  6. Unification of the classes will only work if there is a way to include all who have built and are building in good faith and that those builders at the very least are allowed the same rights and privileges that the earlier builders took advantage of. To do less in very wrong and the ones suggesting excluding many know it. Changing the rules for NEW builders may be OK, but even that has to be done carefully. Joe I550 130 - legal under original and NA rule sets Open 550 - 336 - not a legal i550!
  7. Based on a PM I received, The i550Class rep is still involved with the "group of Four". So my mistake and my apologies. I misinterpreted something I was told apparently. And yes, the i550Class certainly has the right to do whatever they want with their rules. Of course they do, I never said otherwise. However, the proposed rules that they have been operating with till now excluded at least 50% of the boats sailing in this country. And what has been stated publicly as their concessions to be more inclusive so far still potentially leaves many completed or substantially complete boats out
  8. Some may know that the i550Class (forum site) , a non-public or “closed” forum – meaning that you must join and be approved to read the forum, is trying to create their own versions of a “unified” rule set. On the surface, this may seem like a great idea. However, from what I have seen and heard so far, they will still leave may both competed and under build i550's out in the cold, forcing a second if not a third “class” to exist simply to include all of the i550 builders who are legal under one or more of the rule sets out there today. It is no longer a “Group of Four” working on unificat
  9. While this a really great ( the annoucement of securing a real and true production builder) and I think a positive for the future of both the i550 as a class and those of us that have bought those plans and have slaved away at building our own, it is also exactly why it is very important that we nail down some solid rules and unite the classes. Now is the time to do it as once there are a gaggle or two of production i550's out there, they will get to set the standard if we early builders have not done it. It may be fine to let that happen, but let's do this now and take better control of the
  10. Yeah, I know, the measurement stuff isn't very exciting. But what is exciting, besides another i550 doing the Everglades Challenge, is that a builder stepped up and measured in his boat. Only a hundred or so more to go (assuming something over a hundred as being built or being built of the 500 plus plan sets sold.)
  11. Couch, for some, the status quo is what works. It allows them to continue to take solace in the fact they they are right and everyone else is wrong. Unity for the i550 class as a whole would mean some are very, very wrong and others very right. A few can't stand that. So they will belittle the attempts at providing information and facts. Meanwhile the masses will always prefer to follow rather than lead. Eventually you will find out the vast majority who read and do not post support your ( and the other three's) efforts at unification. In any case, this thread is not the best place
  12. Nope... 3.5 is from a flat panel. You can't have a concave (hollow) greater than 0.5" (12mm). That's in there due to the hollow sometimes created near the bow btw.The +1" is needed as a minimum because the hull panel at 53.5, if not pulled flush into a straight line as the original design (straight side) will bulge 13/16" to 15/16" from a straight line. You have to keep in mind that the post 400 plans are NOT THE SAME as the pre 400 plans. The CAD file that was drawn by Lee changed the hull sides from straight to rounded to overcome many of the build issues found in the early boats. Yeah
  13. I just measured the deviation from the design hull shape at 90 inches forward of station 214 on hull 130. I lofted the boat, it was not a template boat nor a kit boat. The actual measurement was 1.25 inches. The plan set says it should be 1.28 inches, so I think it is pretty close. The deviation appears to be a -.03 inches, which is less than the measurement error of doing it by myself in the dark with a flashlight in like 15 minutes. Even if we allow for a + or - 1/8" measurement error, it still passes the more restrictive CA rule set tolerances of +/- .25 inches. On SA, yellow
  14. Glad, I read rule 3.6 as plus 1", so a max of 2.28", then am interpeting the use of 3.5 (concave restriction) as a -.5" from the design shape of 1.28 so it needs to be .78" and from what Couch has posted, his might be less than that minimum. Hull 336 seems to be right about there. It seems that the CA rules at .25" isn't enough but it might need to be a bit bigger than the .5" as well. In any case, I think the max of 1" is overly large as it really would take a purposeful change to the bulkhead to accomblish the max. But of course, only getting more to measure will give the Group of Four
  15. So, Couch, your boat misses the minimum dimension of 1.03 for the CLass rule set and the 1.28 or .78 for the NA rule set and would have passed the original rule set, under which the boat wasbuilt. What are the actual demensions? It seems like they are about .65"? I check hull 336 a little bit ago. I realize that I had not checked that dimension before because on hull 130 I lofted the boat and knew I had pulled the hull panels tight to the bulkheads and 336 doesn't pass any of the rue sets anyway. I also know that Chris did not try to change the offset or curvature of the hull at that p
  • Create New...