Bulkheads/Deck Frames

[Chuck Luscomb]

Does anyone have any thoughts on using foam cored carbon fiber bulkheads/deck frames. I have 1/8th inch think panels that would be ideal for this application. With the strenght of these, fewer can be used and a simple G10 class deck can be used to cover. Has anyone experimented with this?

Thanks,

Chuck
#1684

[kahle67]

Chuck,

It has been a while since I have built a boat with deck frames, but why not? I made a radio board and a rudder post support beam with foam cored carbon and it is definitely stiff and light. Fabricating your frames will take more time, money and skill but in the end you will have no wood in the boat that will eventually rot.

Reichard Kahle
Charleston, SC

[Chuck Luscomb]

Thanks Reichard,

I was begining to think I had said a bad word or something. Many had read the question but no one was replying. I have had very good luck with this carbon panel on other projects and I did not see anything in the class rules about excluding carbon in this area so I thought it might be worth a try.

Thanks for your thoughts.

See you in November,

Chuck

[ivorcwalton]

I thought that carbon fiber was a banned material for EC12 construction.

Ivor

[Doug Wotring]

way I read the rules last the rig has material limitations as does the deck.

and of course the Hull

[Capt. Flak]

The deck has material restrictions (wood, fiberglass, or formica) but there is no restriction on the support system under the deck. In fact there is no description of the support system under the deck in the rules.

Joe Walter #24

[PegLeg]

One might speculate that the support system for the deck (beams, stifeners, mast support etc.) is an intergral part of the deck. Were I to show up with a new boat using carbon stifeners anywhere on the boat, Joe would likely protest, and depending on the jury would win.

Rather than speculate, It is suggested that the question be put to the class secretary for a definitive ruling and published as per the class rules.

While Rick is responding to that question he might also take the time to rule on the legitimacy of using carbon fibre tubes (or rods) as stiffner inserts on booms. I do believe there are many 'composite' booms in use. But being out of sight does not make them legal unless the secretary makes and publishes a proper interpretation (or does it?)

[Rick West]

I will not respond with an interpretation of the rules in a forum until it is in writing and published. I have received no request for such but suggestions.

If one read section 4 carefully you will know the reference to a deck and the properties of it.

However, on the side and as a builder, I have never seen the benefit of CF ribs. Whether alone or sandwiched, they have less gluing surface, are more costly, require more time, not any lighter and not likely to find something suitable from a local supplier. That is my opinion. I like the decks with no ribs.

CF sleeved in or laminated with approved materials for booms is not legal. It has been said so many times regardless of Rule 9 being clear. To suggest that it is being done would offend the vast majority who view the rules as a trust. If the trust were violated, it would be of no gain to the owner in doing so.

Carbon Fiber has always been one of those materials that evoke distain from what we have seen in some other classes. It is not hard to imagine an $8000 finished EC12 that would tank barely over 42â€

[PegLeg]

Rick

Lets not fight in public. It is so beneath you to speculate about my likes and dislikes. actually I like you two guys, I just do not agree with all the things you do.

The comments were CF and issue resolution. I had no comment related to like or dislikes or personal animus as you suggest. I really think you owe me an appology for being so far out.

The protest comment was intended to suggest that there had been no official ruling on the items raised. The "Joe" refered to as a possible protester had no last name. For Mr Walter to assume it was he being refered to is terribly egotistical

Also please note that I did not request an interpretation, I DID SUGGEST that matter be refered to you for a ruling.

As for the carbon sleeving of booms: I chose not to make a public "outing" of the individuals and specifics but I can furnish you with particulars if you are interested (and know of a way to check without drilling a cross hole to check them out.

Rick, I am really disappointed that you allow Joe Walter's extremenly obnoxious and possibly slanderous comments to be posted. I thought such personal attacks were forbidden on the forum. Or did I miss that part of the discussion rules?

[PegLeg]

Joe

I do hope you can get some lessons in logic, originality and anger management before too much more time passes. I realy do hate seing you wasting your vitrol and venom on me.

Your logic does not follow. When you use my surname in a sentence I can only conclude that you are refering to me and therefore none of my ego is involved.

The lack of originality by using (plagarizing) my exact phrase ("terribly egotistical") is surprising given your profession.

And, from what I have heard your anger management could use some brushing up on.

As to your earlier thesis that the deck beams are not a part of the deck and the inference therefore "anything goes", please consider the following.

Since deck beams are somewhere between the deck and the hull they could belong to either.

If they are not a part of the deck, but are attached to the hull, then do they not become part of the hull? If they are a part of the hull, and the hull must be of fibreglass (Class rule 2.4)

If the deck beams are not made from fibreglass then they can not be part of the hull and therefore must be part of the deck system. And the deck (system?)is limited to wood, formica, fibreglass (with foam or wood core).

If the deck beams are neither deck or hull does it follow that deck stifening materials also fall into limbo? There is no specific definition for beam materials (other than that shown on the drawing sold from the class store - basswood)

With further thought and after reading Rick's response, I can only suggest that Chuck (or other interested party) make a written request to the Class secretary to provide some ruling on the allowable materials for deck beams.

The requestor might also wish to know about the legality of using celluar material (divinyl cores etc), kevlar, polyester or carbon fibre threaded materials to stifen the deck as well as the carbon / foam stuff that started this discussion. NOTE that since none of the above mentioned materials are speciffically allowed, Class rule 1.2 specifically prohibits them.

Me? I don't give a hoot about the answer. But I do believe there may be someone who does and therefore that someone should make the inqiry of Rick for an official ruling on the use of the foam/carbon panels and the other materials mentioned above.

And as for you Joe, you should go straight to the pond, soak your head and relax. I sure would not like to be the last straw that gets you committed to long term care.

[Doug Wotring]

boy's take your pissing match outside please

[PegLeg]

Doug

I completely agree that there should never be a "match" on the discussion forum.

However; please do not expect me to sit idly by whilst being insulted and 'dumped upon'. I reserve the right to defend my self when attacked.

I do hope you will understand.

Pete

[greerdr]

List moderater-step in please.

R.C.Greer

[Chuck Luscomb]

Thanks Rick for the response on that. Since the rules do not call out the deck supports, it was worth asking.

I had been over to look at one of Bob D's decks. They are really nice. So nice in fact that I am pretty sure I could not build a better one myself so I bought one. It arrived last week and I am tanking the boat now to get the right trim. You will be pleased to know that the boat will be Carbon Free!

Thanks to everyone for their comments.



Chuck
1684

[greerdr]

YEAH,no more carbon..as monoxides , dioxides, or for that matter fiber.

R.C.Greer