|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|03-13-2007 09:57 PM|
I think it is better if the deck is solid where the deck fittings are put in. This eliminates the problems with water migration into the deck core. However, it does require a bit more planning on the part of the manufacturer.
|03-13-2007 07:29 PM|
On some older boats the core was put in, in as large a piece as they could bend in or fit. so you could have half a sheet of ply or core in one area. most
new boats that use wood for core cut the material up into many small squares and lay them like tiles. Think of little 3"x3" wood tiles with glass as the grout lines. It's very strong and the coring follows the curves of the mold better than large pieces. another benefit to this is when a fastener does leak the water can only spread to the limits of the size of the tile, Assuming the outer skins have not delaminated.
Hope this makes sense.
|03-13-2007 06:32 PM|
|camaraderie||OK...I am gonna move a COPY of this whole thread over to off topic..."Global Warming" and delete the non-global wasrming related stuff over there. Lets keep this thread back on buying first yacht. You globalwarmers here can delete your posts here if you see fit and want to just use the ones on the off topic thread.|
|03-10-2007 08:16 AM|
|sailingdog||And if you have a boat...the increasing water depth just means you have more places you can sail...|
|03-10-2007 07:40 AM|
Wasn't this about buying a boat (and then spending enough money to qualify for yacht status)? Though a good tangent for all to consider, not just sailors who save energy by moving about using petroleum based hulls and sails ;-)
That said, whether one agrees with the issue of global warming and its roots in our society or not, a decrease in the production of 'greenhouse' gases is not a bad thing. Cleaner air, more efficient energy, less focus on fuel supply, etc. Even to a complete naysayer to science, the benefits are not all that bad.
An interesting note: A study recently published in Science (or was it nature?) did a review of ALL scientific papers that focusing on global warming published in the last 10 (#?) years and newspaper articles focusing on the same (big names like NYT, WP, etc.). They took a random sample of 1000 reserach papers and found that ALL supported the hypotesis that global warming is caused by the release of 'greenhouse' gases. Then they took a random sample of newspeper articles and found that nearly half presented the idea that global warming may not be caused by human actions. And I wonder which papers have a larger readership?
The weather is changing. Why? Many reasons, but it IS changing.
So go buy a boat, make it a yacht and sail to where the weather suits you :-)
|03-10-2007 01:31 AM|
Until I see a causal explanation for an evidentiary trend that takes the planet's entire geological history into account, I attribute this latest version of the falling sky to the disaster that is the West's intellectual class.
Well Rags (if I may be so familiar), I don't think that anyone is going to sit you down at Starbucks and give you the personalised dog and pony show, but the evidence is there if you want to read it. It takes a bit of effort, but even discounting the more extreme fear-mongering, there's no debating that something is going on. We really notice it up here.
And Cam - as far as Kyoto goes, there was a law passed a few weeks ago here, that basically binds the government to meeet the targets...as impossible as that is. A grandstanding gesture to be sure, but it's (Global Warming) the primary voter concern in this country.
For me, it's one of those conscience things. I'll be long gone before there are palm trees in Toronto, but I feel like I have a duty to do my small part. I'm not suggesting we should try to start a compost heap on the boat or anything, but I think seriously about getting one of them there newfangled hybrid cars...had a hybrid dog once and it worked out real well ...
|03-08-2007 01:13 AM|
Well if we want to get insanely techncal about it - and as it's midnight and there is no-one else to talk to...
Strictly speaking it is not the keel that flexes and creates the "smile". The keels are fairly thick pieces of metal, and any force that was strong enough to make them flex or bend, would first have the effect of snapping the keel bolts in half.
However there is no denying the fact that they do lose their bedding compound. It happens because the goop loses it's flexibility and over time, the lateral force on the keel has the effect of ever-so-slightly widening the holes that the keel bolts are in so that the keel becames a tad loose and water works it's way in.
Then the boat is hauled out for the winter and the water that has worked its way in behind the little pieces of bedding compound expands and the stuff falls out.
Or, if the boat is down south in the US, and if the owner doesn't check the keel boats at the beginning of every season, it gets a tad more than a tad loose, and the goop again falls out.
Hence - the smile is due to two things we really can't do much about....the weather and the Americans
Always happy to help !
|03-08-2007 12:55 AM|
|03-08-2007 12:52 AM|
|sailingdog||Race boats tend to have a bit less durabilty than "cruising" boats, as they tend to have lighter scantlings and weight is truly the enemy in any racing. The C&C Smile is a term I've seen very often, when discussing the more race-oriented C&C boats.... not all of their boats were as "race" oriented as others though.|
|03-08-2007 12:26 AM|
Like CardiacPaul says, you'll find plenty of references to the "C&C smile" online. It ain't my phrase, it ain't new, and it ain't uncommon.
C&C built racing boats and if you ask anyone who designs winning racing boats--they are always built light. The saying among racers (cars, boats, planes, doesn't matter which) is that if you haven't broken anything, it wasn't built light enough.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|