Re: Re: what is difficult in building indoor duration

From: Jake Palmer <82.jake_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:42:49 -0700

I tend to agree with Mike. While I certainly appreciate the elegance of
Treger's hub, I don't think it offers any performance advantages over an
older style hub.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:29 PM, mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net
<mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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_at_...> 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 - 13:42:50 CEST