Date: 8/17/2003, 11:51 am
i must apologize
i did not mean for the question to take the turn that it did.
i merely thought it would be useful to have available accounts of kayak collissions, mishaps, etc. and the resulting damage or lack thereof.
something like : my kayak was holed (or not) by a rock hitting the hull under my seat as the surf brount me down on a 6'' diameter rock. i estimate the weight of kayak and gear and paddler was 205 pounds and dropped 1 foot in less than a second. my layup of the stripper was 4oz e glass on the inside with 6oz and an extra layer of 4oz on the bottom of the hull.
something to this effect.
i do agree that engineering analysis is very useful in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the building processes, but does not always agree with reality. empiric anectdotal information is real, but may not lead to the understanding of the forces involved. still it is useful, and a large body of data my yield some insights. a weak layup on a kayak that is treated gingerly may be adequate, but until we see some endpoints, the information is not bracketed. it would be nice to know how light one may go and still survive the rigors of day to day use with the occassional 2plus standard deviation calamity. crash testing would be useful, but expensive. just looking for the unintended crashes to provide the data.
john
Messages In This Thread
- Other: damage
john -- 8/15/2003, 3:19 pm- Re: Other: damage
Randy Oswald -- 8/18/2003, 5:17 pm- Re: Other: damage
Randy Oswald -- 8/18/2003, 5:20 pm
- Re: Other: damage
john -- 8/17/2003, 11:51 am- Re: Other: damage
Mike Hanks -- 8/17/2003, 9:51 pm- Re: Other: damage
john -- 8/19/2003, 1:32 am- Re: Other: damage
Mike Hanks -- 8/19/2003, 9:22 am
- Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: damage *NM*
Mike Hanks -- 8/17/2003, 9:06 pm - Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: damage
yakman -- 8/16/2003, 11:09 am- Re: Other: damage
Paul Probus -- 8/18/2003, 12:55 pm- Re: Other: damage
Jim Pace -- 8/18/2003, 2:13 pm- Re: Other: damage
Paul Probus -- 8/19/2003, 1:20 pm
- Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: damage
C. Fronzek -- 8/16/2003, 3:44 pm- Re: Other: damage
yakman -- 8/16/2003, 4:49 pm- Re: Other: damage
Brian Nystrom -- 8/19/2003, 12:57 pm- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
Mike Hanks -- 8/16/2003, 6:15 pm- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
jimkozel -- 8/17/2003, 11:19 am- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
Tom Yost -- 8/18/2003, 2:56 pm- Re: WELL SAID, Jim! *NM*
Steve Frederick -- 8/17/2003, 6:05 pm- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
yakman -- 8/17/2003, 2:30 pm- Re: Anonymity and hostility
Shawn Baker -- 8/17/2003, 11:42 pm- Well said, Shawn *NM*
Brian Nystrom -- 8/19/2003, 12:49 pm
- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
Rehd -- 8/17/2003, 3:47 pm - Well said, Shawn *NM*
- I'm With you, Jim-IDENTIFY Or take a HIKE *NM*
Charles Leach -- 8/17/2003, 1:42 pm- dito! *NM*
Danny -- 8/17/2003, 12:55 pm- Exactly *NM*
Ted Henry -- 8/17/2003, 12:34 pm - Re: WELL SAID, Jim! *NM*
- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
- Re: Other: damage, in more ways than one
- Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: Engineering analysis *LINK*
Brad Farr -- 8/16/2003, 12:21 am- Re: Other: damage *LINK*
Glen Smith -- 8/15/2003, 4:54 pm- Re: Other: damage
Ryan -- 8/15/2003, 6:31 pm- Re: Other: damage
Paul G. Jacobson -- 8/15/2003, 9:37 pm
- Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: damage
Bill Price -- 8/15/2003, 3:49 pm - Re: Other: damage
- Re: Other: damage