I have finally got the traveler arch fitted perfectly to it's pads but now I am having some doubts before I bond it in place. From the bottom of the keel to the top of the arch will be 15'4". Set on a Brownell trailer with the keel on a drop bar the road height will be right at 16'2". Without the arch the height would be 13'4". As the beam is 14' it will have to get an oversize permit anyway but anything over 13'6" is charged extra by most movers.
This is not really a problem for me as the keel will not go on until the boat is at the launch site but it will be if sometime down the road another owner wants to transport it. Especially through states with 16' bridge clearances.
The question is, do I bond the arch to the hull and just leave the moving problem to the next owner 20 years from now or bolt it on so it can be removed? Obviously bonding will be much stronger.
If the design is such that you can bolt it and beef it up with some compact (carbon uni?) scabbing that can be later ground away if the need arises, i'd lean that way. But, Glenn, i expect that you've already done a primo job of finishing the parts. That'll teach you. Jim "Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message news:zM7de.768$sy6.455@lakeread04...> I have finally got the traveler arch fitted perfectly to it's pads but now
am having some doubts before I bond it in place. From the bottom of the> keel to the top of the arch will be 15'4". Set on a Brownell trailer with> the keel on a drop bar the road height will be right at 16'2". Without
arch the height would be 13'4". As the beam is 14' it will have to get an> oversize permit anyway but anything over 13'6" is charged extra by most> movers.>
This is not really a problem for me as the keel will not go on until the> boat is at the launch site but it will be if sometime down the road
another> owner wants to transport it. Especially through states with 16' bridge> clearances.>
The question is, do I bond the arch to the hull and just leave the moving> problem to the next owner 20 years from now or bolt it on so it can be> removed? Obviously bonding will be much stronger.>
Glenn Ashmore wrote:> I have finally got the traveler arch fitted perfectly to it's pads but now I > am having some doubts before I bond it in place. From the bottom of the > keel to the top of the arch will be 15'4". Set on a Brownell trailer with > the keel on a drop bar the road height will be right at 16'2". Without the > arch the height would be 13'4". As the beam is 14' it will have to get an > oversize permit anyway but anything over 13'6" is charged extra by most > movers.>
This is not really a problem for me as the keel will not go on until the > boat is at the launch site but it will be if sometime down the road another > owner wants to transport it. Especially through states with 16' bridge > clearances.>
The question is, do I bond the arch to the hull and just leave the moving > problem to the next owner 20 years from now or bolt it on so it can be > removed? Obviously bonding will be much stronger.
Bond it. The next owner may not move it overland. YOU'RE the owner - not the future one.
Bond it. The next owner may not move it overland. YOU'RE> the owner - not the future one.>
Evan Gatehouse
I was hoping you would chime in. I was already leaning towards bonding but my intestinal fortitude needed some reinforcement.
The arch is carbon composite and very stiff. Bonding will spread any shock load over a much wider area and I can't concieve of me ever transporting the boat after it hits the water. .
On Sun, 1 May 2005 12:49:44 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote:
I have finally got the traveler arch fitted perfectly to it's pads but now I >am having some doubts before I bond it in place. From the bottom of the >keel to the top of the arch will be 15'4". Set on a Brownell trailer with >the keel on a drop bar the road height will be right at 16'2". Without the >arch the height would be 13'4". As the beam is 14' it will have to get an >oversize permit anyway but anything over 13'6" is charged extra by most >movers.>
This is not really a problem for me as the keel will not go on until the >boat is at the launch site but it will be if sometime down the road another >owner wants to transport it. Especially through states with 16' bridge >clearances.>
The question is, do I bond the arch to the hull and just leave the moving >problem to the next owner 20 years from now or bolt it on so it can be >removed? Obviously bonding will be much stronger.
You are talking of the choice between adding market value by increasing the reasonable transport radius of a prospective sale vs some present sense of increased strength of a structural part of your love-child.
If you were not interested in maximizing perceived value you would not have sweated the many details already.
So I am sure which option you will finally settle on. The message just has not yet arrived at your consciousness. Yet.
The only think I've seen suffer damage from being too strong is some very high temperature stuff. Bond it.
Having said that, if you absolutely HAD to remove the arch for any reason, how and where would you cut it and subsequently replace it - given that the final strength / stiffness would only need to match the "bolting" option .
Bond it and be damned.
David
"Glenn Ashmore" <gashmore@cox.net> wrote in message news:c6hde.1206$sy6.978@lakeread04...>
Bond it. The next owner may not move it overland. YOU'RE>> the owner - not the future one.>>
Evan Gatehouse>
I was hoping you would chime in. I was already leaning towards bonding > but my intestinal fortitude needed some reinforcement. >
The arch is carbon composite and very stiff. Bonding will spread any > shock load over a much wider area and I can't concieve of me ever > transporting the boat after it hits the water. .>
