thanks for that, but we have it sorted now, see last post. to take the bending I need full box shaped sockets which get carbon towed down the hull sides. Very strong and simple. Almost no bending load at the ww hull so make these teh  push through - non-wedged in sized sockets, so will just need to be boplted or lashed into position. Something to give the right reference position to help get it in correct alignement I guess is required. Maximum weight of any one boat piece should be less than 20kg. That would be the lw hull. Should weeigh it sometime.   Also wondering abount raising the beam higher above the deck to keep ou dryer when its a little mild weather.?   Doug --- On Tue, 16/6/09, Michael Gehl <mike@vail.net> wrote: From: Michael Gehl <mike@vail.net> Subject: Re: [harryproa] Re: harriette To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au Date: Tuesday, 16 June, 2009, 8:01 AM The beams just need to be shaped this way:  -  \   -   -  / - sorry for the crude ascii art. i.e. as long as the beam ends and sockets are parallel, the beams can be any shape in between! Mike On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Mike Crawford wrote:   It's also my impression that the goal is to demount, not telescope.  The trick is how the ends are attached.   I've been assuming that they fit into a socket in order to maximize contact area and minimize stress points.  And if the sockets are tight enough to provide that contact area, I don't believe the splayed beams will slide in.   If you had a series of large bolts on one end, and could slide the beams up into place from underneath, that might work.  It could be a socket with the bottom edge open.  But I'd still worry about concentrating stress where bolts attach.        - Mike    jrwells2007 wrote: I assume what Doug is getting at with splayed beams is to have beams that are demountable not telescopic. The primary concern is for trailering and not bothering about reducing beam for berthing. The attachment of the beams to the hulls would require some other system rather than a sleeve for at least one of the beam ends unless there is sufficient lateral flexibility of the beams to insert into a short sleeve probably at the ww hull end. John --- In harryproa@yahoogrou ps.com.au, Mike Crawford <jmichael@.. .> wrote: > > Doug, >  > While I'm not sold on Robert's reverse sheer idea (I like the egg > cross section -- to each his own), I do think he has a point here. >  > To test his theory, I'd cut two short hulls from scrap foam (30 cm and > 45 cm each) and make some beams out of dowels or pencils.  >  > For the first test, attach the beams parallel for one test, buried > into the hull pieces by at least 2 cm, and see how they will slide into > and out of the holds in the foam. >  > For the second test, attach the beams at a 30 to 45 degree angle, > again with 2 cm bury, and then see how smoothly you can get them to > slide in and out of the holes when both "beams" are in. I realize you > probably won't toe the beams out at 45 degrees, but the point is to test > the theory. >  > In the end, I think you'll find that: a) either the beams need to be > parallel, or b) the ends of the beams need to be parallel, even if the > main portion of the beam angles out. >  > - Mike

•  1
  New Members
•  39
  New Photos