Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA03131; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:53:36 -0800 Return-Path: <jon@oilsystems.com-DeleteThis> Received: from durian.oilsystems.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA20222; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:53:31 -0800 Message-Id: <9411172353.AA20222@hplms26.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Received: by durian.oilsystems.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA07016; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:46:49 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:46:49 -0800 From: Jon Peterson <jon@oilsystems.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: Re: Dynafiber booms
> My experience with Fiberspar has been bad. Too many swims, sail
> repairs, and time waiting for replacement authorization and shipping
> (Fiberspar does honor their waranty). As far as their front end, it
> takes more than one year to be considered successful.
Fiberspar does not make their front ends. The model they are currently using
is also used by other boom suppliers. Fiberspar was the first carbon boom
manufacturer I know of. I am sure the carbon bodies significantly increased
the stress on the aluminum front ends. This increases fatigue and more
importanly stress corrosion cracking. The re-design of the front end was
in response to these problems. Yes, a more significant engineering and test
program may have exposed these problems before bringing them to market.
Unfortunately Fiberspar, and most other windsurfing companies don't have the
resources for this. We sailors in high wind areas get to do the final testing.
I know of some workstation companies that ship OS's before they are reliable
and completely tested--windsurfing companies are not unique in their limited
resources.
> I also don't
> like the fact that they use the least reliable method of carbon/epoxy
> layup in their masts and booms.
What is the least reliable method? My guess is a hand layup by an in-experienced
person; Fiberspar is not using this technique. I am pretty sure they are
using a wet layup with a purpose build layup/winding machine. They also test
all masts in a purpose built machine before shipping. I am not sure if these
tests are applied to boom bodies.
Other composite manufacturing methods are not so clear cut either. Pre-pregs
pose similar problems to a wet layup, for example, how do you get the proper
resin to fiber ratio. Most pre-pregs have excess epoxy, proper application
of bleeder cloth, temperature and pressure are required to achieve desired
ratios.
In short, composite manufacturing is not an easy process. No one technique
has all the answers. We cannot expect aerospace performance with
recreational budgets.
Sorry, I know this thing is being beat to death but I could not let this
pass.
Jon Peterson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:23 PST