Hm, right, as far as i know the last i heard was that claysie was going to organise boat rental from alba ....and not heard anything since? Is it all organised? I spect not....
See, the fact is that i rented a boat from alba last year for cc08, and um, hence know what the likely actual cost is going to be, and i'm just a bit concerned that claysie will have had a slight seizure when he finds out....
worried about claymore - cc09
-
Nick
- Admiral of the Blue
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 4:11 pm
- Boat Type: Albin Vega 27 and Morgan Giles 30
- Location: Oban. Scotland
- Contact:
I suspect . . .
.
'twill be as nothing to the seizure Dear Heart has when she finds out . . .i'm just a bit concerned that claysie will have had a slight seizure when he finds out
- Nick 
-
ash
- Yellow Admiral
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:14 pm
- Boat Type: Moody 346
- Location: Tarbert, East Loch Tarbert, Loch Fyne, Scotland
TCM
Posting at this ungodly hour cos I can't sleep.
Bit of Fred Drift.
I read your (TCM's) posts about the damage to your 'A' post with interest. I confess that I haven't kept up to date with the thread so this might all be far too late and can be ignored.
I didn't post at the time because I don't have any experience of cats, and I wasn't in the frame of mind for debate.
I do have an engineering background, and will give an opinion for what it's worth.
The 'A' post and heavy duty strop over the top have an extremely important function in resisting the upward bend in the crossbeam caused by the tension in the forestay. I would advise against mucking about with the tension in the HD strop as this will be crucial to the design.
I understand what you are saying about the nacelle being bolted onto the crossbeam, but that will only stiffen the crossbeam in the fore/aft direction.
Assuming that the forestay goes all the way down to the crossbeam, the position of the top of the 'A' post in a fore/aft direction isn't crucial unless it alters the tension in the HD strop. It would make sense that it follow the line of the forestay, from an aesthetic point of view if nothing else.
The feet of the 'A' post don't need to be securely fixed to the crossbeam because the 'A' post will have been designed with sufficient integral strength and stiffness to prevent the legs from splaying under load. I would advise against adding additional fixings as this could induce stress, and will provide points where water could attack the beam.
I would pull the 'A' post back into position and attempt to 'dress' the flanges on the feet back onto the beam using heavy duty 'C' clamps and/or hammer. This won't be entirely successful as the metal will have spring and will always leave a gap. I would then introduce a material into the gap which was sufficiently strong in compression to spread the load from the entire foot flange into the beam. I would suggest using the two part putty which is designed for emergency repairs, even underwater. I would finish off with an external 45 deg fillet to exclude the water, then paint to make good.
The simple wire between the top of the 'A' post and the sprit is a very, very poor design. The wire should have been continuous from the sprit, up and over the 'A' post to improve the angle and aft to a strong point. Whether this wire should have a designed weak point is debatable - a weak point would lose you the sprit and the sail. I'm sure that it could be designed to be sufficiently strong.
I would suggest the following simple modification which would reduce the likelyhood of the sprit coming under a downwards force. Attach an additional strong strop between the tack and a strong point on the crossbeam, this strop could hang slightly loose in use. Fit a hook / horn rigidly to the sprit. This hook would be similar to that found at the forward end of the boom in older designs where the mainsail has slab reefing but doesn't have single line reefing. The hook could have a light spring across the open mouth to prevent the tack dropping off when hoisting/dropping the sail.
In the event of losing the halliard, the sail would drop into the water, the tack would be pulled down, through the spring and off the hook without imposing any great force on the sprit. The sail would be secured to the boat by the strong strop until she could be stopped and the sail recovered.
This is all in my unprofessional opinion and should be treated as such. I hope that I don't find the origional thread and discover that I've been 'Lakesailered'
Ash
BTW - returning to the origional subject. I had asumed that Claymore was simply placing the order, and asking Alba to use the details of the credit card that they had on file from last year for the payment. Big
Bit of Fred Drift.
I read your (TCM's) posts about the damage to your 'A' post with interest. I confess that I haven't kept up to date with the thread so this might all be far too late and can be ignored.
I didn't post at the time because I don't have any experience of cats, and I wasn't in the frame of mind for debate.
I do have an engineering background, and will give an opinion for what it's worth.
The 'A' post and heavy duty strop over the top have an extremely important function in resisting the upward bend in the crossbeam caused by the tension in the forestay. I would advise against mucking about with the tension in the HD strop as this will be crucial to the design.
I understand what you are saying about the nacelle being bolted onto the crossbeam, but that will only stiffen the crossbeam in the fore/aft direction.
Assuming that the forestay goes all the way down to the crossbeam, the position of the top of the 'A' post in a fore/aft direction isn't crucial unless it alters the tension in the HD strop. It would make sense that it follow the line of the forestay, from an aesthetic point of view if nothing else.
The feet of the 'A' post don't need to be securely fixed to the crossbeam because the 'A' post will have been designed with sufficient integral strength and stiffness to prevent the legs from splaying under load. I would advise against adding additional fixings as this could induce stress, and will provide points where water could attack the beam.
I would pull the 'A' post back into position and attempt to 'dress' the flanges on the feet back onto the beam using heavy duty 'C' clamps and/or hammer. This won't be entirely successful as the metal will have spring and will always leave a gap. I would then introduce a material into the gap which was sufficiently strong in compression to spread the load from the entire foot flange into the beam. I would suggest using the two part putty which is designed for emergency repairs, even underwater. I would finish off with an external 45 deg fillet to exclude the water, then paint to make good.
The simple wire between the top of the 'A' post and the sprit is a very, very poor design. The wire should have been continuous from the sprit, up and over the 'A' post to improve the angle and aft to a strong point. Whether this wire should have a designed weak point is debatable - a weak point would lose you the sprit and the sail. I'm sure that it could be designed to be sufficiently strong.
I would suggest the following simple modification which would reduce the likelyhood of the sprit coming under a downwards force. Attach an additional strong strop between the tack and a strong point on the crossbeam, this strop could hang slightly loose in use. Fit a hook / horn rigidly to the sprit. This hook would be similar to that found at the forward end of the boom in older designs where the mainsail has slab reefing but doesn't have single line reefing. The hook could have a light spring across the open mouth to prevent the tack dropping off when hoisting/dropping the sail.
In the event of losing the halliard, the sail would drop into the water, the tack would be pulled down, through the spring and off the hook without imposing any great force on the sprit. The sail would be secured to the boat by the strong strop until she could be stopped and the sail recovered.
This is all in my unprofessional opinion and should be treated as such. I hope that I don't find the origional thread and discover that I've been 'Lakesailered'
Ash
BTW - returning to the origional subject. I had asumed that Claymore was simply placing the order, and asking Alba to use the details of the credit card that they had on file from last year for the payment. Big
"This is a sailing Forum"
Albin Vega "Mistral" is now sold
Albin Vega "Mistral" is now sold
Re: TCM
hi, thanks for this. As always, i spose yer gotta see it.
I to have engineering background, and possibly less faith in the notion that engineers makes everything just rght and all for a very god purpose, not to big and not to small.
Fact is that they've bolted the crossbeam to the central nacelle which gives enormous support in all directions - fore, for aft up and down. Thus with essentially no flex allowed in the crossbeam - the a-frame does nothing at all. Because only when the crssbeam flexes would the cable over the a-frame begin to convert the lateral movement into end-end compression. The aframe *would* be important if only a two-hul design, possibly why they somewhat unthinkingly put it in.
Athough i must say A-frames seem a bit of a twittish solution anyway - to stop a beam flexing you put in a fatter beam, not ponce about with unproven a-frame assemblies which attempt to convert a flex into end-end compression on that same beam. I mean, if the beam flexes by 10mm (say) then is all of that going to be resisted by a (much longer) piece of cable? Why wouldn't the cable stretch a bit? And if it stretched (say) only 2-3mm...it would be allowing all the 10mm transverse flexing in the beam, and not doing much, again. Fatter crossbeam is the design solution, i think.
The nice manufacturers kindly sent me a repair drawing which shows er, some self-tapping screws and sikaflex.
I to have engineering background, and possibly less faith in the notion that engineers makes everything just rght and all for a very god purpose, not to big and not to small.
Fact is that they've bolted the crossbeam to the central nacelle which gives enormous support in all directions - fore, for aft up and down. Thus with essentially no flex allowed in the crossbeam - the a-frame does nothing at all. Because only when the crssbeam flexes would the cable over the a-frame begin to convert the lateral movement into end-end compression. The aframe *would* be important if only a two-hul design, possibly why they somewhat unthinkingly put it in.
Athough i must say A-frames seem a bit of a twittish solution anyway - to stop a beam flexing you put in a fatter beam, not ponce about with unproven a-frame assemblies which attempt to convert a flex into end-end compression on that same beam. I mean, if the beam flexes by 10mm (say) then is all of that going to be resisted by a (much longer) piece of cable? Why wouldn't the cable stretch a bit? And if it stretched (say) only 2-3mm...it would be allowing all the 10mm transverse flexing in the beam, and not doing much, again. Fatter crossbeam is the design solution, i think.
The nice manufacturers kindly sent me a repair drawing which shows er, some self-tapping screws and sikaflex.
Re: worried about claymore - cc09
... a picture of the auld goat has come my way by a circuitous route (not the young nephew as the publication, from a seat of learning, would have been promptly despatched to the top shelf in the uni's bookshop and wrapped in a brown paper bag) which shows him in his tux having such a medical condition whilst gazing at the breasts of a gangster's moll ...tcm wrote:i'm just a bit concerned that claysie will have had a slight seizure when he finds out....
-
claymore
- Admiral of the Green
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:55 pm
- Boat Type: Claymore
- Location: Ardfern or Lancashire
http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/n ... pringboard
Ah wisnae lookin at ony boobies - mind you ra lassie behint me has a lovely action wi her richt hon...
Ah wisnae lookin at ony boobies - mind you ra lassie behint me has a lovely action wi her richt hon...
Regards
Claymore
Claymore
don't think soShard wrote:Well, they must both be very tall.
Is the one on the left the taxi driver?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/lan ... 402635.stm
-
claymore
- Admiral of the Green
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:55 pm
- Boat Type: Claymore
- Location: Ardfern or Lancashire
Denmark is rather like Wales I would venture to suggest. Wales I find to be rather spoilt by the people therein - Denmark suffers a similar fate - not only do the Danes mumble, they do so in Danish
However - the grand-daughter is the apple of our eyes and Dear Heart has plans which have arrived at a fairly advanced stage surrounding the abduction of same.
tak
However - the grand-daughter is the apple of our eyes and Dear Heart has plans which have arrived at a fairly advanced stage surrounding the abduction of same.
tak
Regards
Claymore
Claymore
claymore wrote:Denmark is rather like Wales I would venture to suggest. Wales I find to be rather spoilt by the people therein - Denmark suffers a similar fate - not only do the Danes mumble, they do so in Danish
However - the grand-daughter is the apple of our eyes and Dear Heart has plans which have arrived at a fairly advanced stage surrounding the abduction of same.
tak
Pardon... speak up laddie!