Received: from hpoclrf.sj.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA09023; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:47:03 -0700 Return-Path: <kirk@hpmsd3.sj.hp.com-DeleteThis> Received: by hpmsd3.sj.hp.com (1.37.109.16/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA091672017; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:46:57 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:46:57 -0700 From: Kirk Lindstrom <kirk@hpmsd3.sj.hp.com-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <199510202046.AA091672017@hpmsd3.sj.hp.com-DeleteThis> To: RZM1%PCs%PS@go50.comp.pge.com-DeleteThis, wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: re:Re: equal time for Fiberspar
Well, sacrafice stiffness for better reliability and you get a
Chinook for $150. The trouble is finding a good stiff boom
that will take >100 days of sailing.....$300 for 60 days is still too
expensive in my opinion.... $300 for 20 days was a joke.
Kirk out
ASD epoxy: 8'8" RKT, 8'11" CS & 9'6" no-nose CS; Mistral CFlex & Malibu
Wt 213#, Ht. 6'0", Usually sail on SF Bay, Cailf.
(kirk_lindstrom@sj.hp.com-DeleteThis)
>
> So, if Fiberspar equipment doesn't last, what does? Which masts and booms
> have been holding up better than Fiberspar?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick Martyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:30:27 PST