Message-Id: <v03007804b386b43ae466@[204.60.11.134]>
In-Reply-To: <01beb376$94ec9cc0$b133d2cf@default>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:48:15 -0400
To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
From: Nick Schade <schade@guillemot-kayaks.com>
Subject: Re: baidarka Soft Chine vs/ Hard Chine
At 3:22 PM -0400 6/10/99, John Winters wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nick Schade <schade@guillemot-kayaks.com>
>To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net <baidarka@lists.intelenet.net>
>Date: June 10, 1999 10:30 AM
>Subject: Re: baidarka Soft Chine vs/ Hard Chine
>
>
>
>>
>>The whole idea of a sheer on a shape that is basically cylindrical strikes
>>me as a little out of whack.
>
>Does sound weird but when I look at a submarine I see a "sheer". Maybe I
>spent too much time working on them and started looking at them with too
>much empathy.
I've spent time working on submarines and never thought to notice a sheer.
The only object they bring to mind reminds me of a joke, "What's long and
round and full of seamen?" But to paraphrase Freud "sometimes a submarine
is just a submarine." WW2 subs had a noticable sheer.
>
>>
>>At the very least with the 45 deg. tangent point you should locate it in
>>two dimensions: height and width. It is no good to talk about the "sheer"
>>height if it is free to vary in width.
>
>Not sure I understand this. Seems to me that any point on the hull would
>have a location in three dimensions. No?
>
Yep, sorry, even more reason why sheer height alone seems pretty meaningless.
Nick Schade
Guillemot Kayaks
10 Ash Swamp Rd
Glastonbury, CT 06033
(860) 659-8847
Schade@guillemot-kayaks.com
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/
>>>>"It's not just Art, It's a Craft!"<<<<