Re: what is difficult in building indoor duration

From: <mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:29:47 -0000

I would have to disagree on composites being out of reach, Nick.
A foot of carbon could make a lifetime of hubs and costs ~$5. Add laminating epoxy and balsa rather than Rohacell and you have an easy carbon yoke in just two layup steps. All you need is a Food Saver.

I am not convinced that the Treger design is any better though- There are some torsional stresses that might be better dealt with using Lutz Schramm's design for example.

Regards.
Mike Kirda


--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Nick Ray <lasray@...> wrote:
>
> I think the ease of construction has a great deal to do with the materials
> involved. A Brown / Kagan style hub is well within the range of average
> indoorist. Most of the materials can ordered from A2Zcorp or even scavenged
> locally. However, composite hubs like Treger, Tyson and Sandborn have built
> require substantially more involved manufacturing processes.
> All three use formed fiberglass tubes and carbon layup screw holders. The
> vacuum bagging process alone is cost prohibitive for many people. One has
> to make 6 or 7 composite hubs to break even when compared to the cost of
> buying them from Treger. Maybe someone would like to produce V/P kits where
> the base components are formed and then sent out with assembly
> instructions.
>
> If F1D keeps moving in the direction of using more and more composite
> technology we are going to be in the same situation as F1B within the next
> ten years. I am for not placing materials restrictions on the models, but
> at the same time I think that for many competitors, particularly juniors we
> may have to decide how we would like to go forward with regard to the BOM
> as the models become more intricate.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
Received on Wed Oct 17 2012 - 13:29:48 CEST