Re: what is difficult in building indoor duration

From: Yuan Kang Lee <ykleetx_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:59:50 -0000

So if there's no advantage in Treger's hub, why not allow it to be purchased and used?




--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Jake Palmer <82.jake@...> wrote:
>
> 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_...
> <mkirda_at_...>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@> 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 - 13:59:52 CEST