When you say my fallacy you are really saying (Skaters, Schiada's, Sabre, Lavey, Eliminator big list....) companies that have been in business 50-55 years, many have boats still running today from that era.

You are arguing with the builders as much more than you are me.

Whenever the #'s dont work out like people want, they cry foul and claim testing distortion.

Like I said I didnt publish the #'s. I only posted the manufacturers data. You attacked me personally saying I posted bogus data.

You "sell" your boats against the companies above claiming they use inferior materials- tough sell when the THIRD PARTY #'s dont align with your agenda.



UD

Uncle That is not going to work and I am not trying to sell anything here, just showing you the "Why" and error of your ways , But it seems a futile effort at best.Testing has always played a big role in what I do and rely on That feed back..

Second Point no matter what the workup indicates on paper a sample from the Lamination Shop needs to be evaluated.

How about we respectfully agree to disagree on core material?



UD

just was asking you to explain, if gel would be stiff and crack. well my old boat is cord with balsa and has lasted 20yrs and my new boat is all balsa and well known for its taking a licking and keeps ticking. I have seen a corded boat take a impact last summer when a another boat bumped in to it at 2 or 3 mph with its nose and put a dent in it 6'' and I noticed cracking of the custom paint or gel it was a skater that got hit. and its not balsa on the side of the hull. thats why I asked. boy I hope my new ride doesn't crack it sure sounded like steelwhen I checked it out in oct. so what are the lastest boats that you built were they ob or ib what power speeds. thanks later

NO!! Don't do that! Keep the thread going......! I don't know crap about this stuff but I was learning something. Maybe you're just not understanding Steve's run-on posts? Maybe he's not understanding the numbers from the manufacturers? Maybe you like wood and he doesn't?

LOL Nort my life has been all about the numbers like My first Cat was living Math! Plus,

having the not only the Resin Laboratory's Phone Numbers But research Chemists (who BTW do not even speak our language)home phone numbers when I was doing a lot of work that needed extending Gel times and ETC..

And The Core Manufacturer Himself dropping by once in a while.


JUST Using those Numbers WITHOUT real world evaluation is NOT understanding the the Problems.

I will make another Post.

Nort Uncle Here POSTED numbers. but he is failing very miserably to see WHAT I WAS trying point OUT!! Which is THE ASTM testing method does not allow the Airex/CoreCell foams to be given THE real credit for what they actually do, which is to GIVE and or DEFORM and then spring Back" Without failing" when subjected to extreme loading to the same strength and shape they had originally.

This is the reason that these foams are so NEAT and THE reason that I have been using them for 30 years
Now ONCE MORE, I will try again!! “ASTM methods” simply regards a movement in the material as a FAILURE, which shows the Linear foams Airex and Corecell to be bad, bad, bad. ROFLMAO and also where say Permanente deformation is considered like an accident they win hands down!

If the ASTM testing method doesn't yield realistic results why does Gurit use it?




Uncle Dave

What are they going to use then??? You still do not get it!!

And uncle there is also some HydroMat testing there as well!