Subject: Re: baidarka : what about pond pine?
From: Douglas Ingram - Red River Canoe & Paddle (redcanoe@pangea.ca)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 10:18:27 EDT
If you have to exert so much force to create the sheer, that resistance
will remain in the wood and it will try and straighten out, to greater or
lesser degrees. There may be enough structure in you boats to hold it in
place, but the stress remains. In canoe building, we steam the gunnels in
order for them to take the curve of the sheer in order for that curve to
remain stable, and to minimize any tendency that they have to push the
stems down. This can really ruin the fairness of the rocker line.
Gentle continuous curves shouldn't be any problem, but anything that
exceeds the woods good natured tendency to take a curve while dry and at
ambient temperature, I believe, should be encouraged to take curves by
alternate means.
Douglas Ingram
Lorette, Manitoba
----------
> From: Rich Frey <pathfndr@nconnect.net>
> To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
> Subject: Re: baidarka : what about pond pine?
> Date: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:24 PM
>
> How does ponderosa pine match up with white pine in weight and
flexibility?
> The local lumber yard has "pond pine"; I assume it's ponderosa pine. So
> far, I've made three boats with it with no problem or warping, although
the
> windlassing to create shear generates so much creaking and groaning, I
> always think it will explode.
>
> Rich
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter A. Chopelas" <pac@premier1.net>
> To: <baidarka@lists.intelenet.net>
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 8:30 PM
> Subject: RE: baidarka Which Spruce?
>
>
> > Wayne,
> >
> > White pine does not show up in either USA or Canada species list for
SPF,
> > it would be grouped with "White Woods" (species stamp WW) but would
> > include any true firs, spruces, hemlocks or pines; Idaho White Pine is
> > stamped "IWP". White could also be listed separately as "Eastern White
> > Pine". And there are a number of mills that do separately identify
> > individual species with their own mark, but nothing listed in the
Western
> > Lumber Grading Rules approved by the Board of Review, American Lumber
> > Standard (which is where all this information came from)
> >
> > As far as strength vs. weight goes you might find this info
interesting:
> >
> > Allowable Stress
> > Weight(LB/CF) Bending (psi) strength /weight ratio
> > Doug Fir 31.2 2400 76.9 (very stiff)
> > Eastern Softwoods 25.5 1875 72.3 (includes eastern spruces- Black,
Red,
> > and White)
> > Eastern White Pine 22.5 1875 83.3
> > Sitka Spruce 26.8 1800 67.2
> > Southern Pine 34.3 2850 83.1 (very stiff)
> > Spruce-Pine-Fir(s) 22.4(least in grp)1950 87.1
> > Western Red Cedar 19.3 1725 89.3
> >
> >
> > This is for 4 or more growth rings per inch (a lot more would be
stronger
> > but would also add weight) with small well spaced tight knots.
Moisture
> > content 19 percent or less. A comparison of tensile strength and
> > compression strength will yield very different results, as will
fastener
> > holding strength. It just depends how you need to load the wood in
each
> > application. This is for larger sizes (2x2 or 2x4), you will find a
clear
> > piece of strait grained wood in stringer size will be stronger, but
this
> > serves as a comparison.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that the strongest wood does not have the
best
> > strength to weight ratio, also interestingly hardwoods such as maple or
> oak
> > are not any stronger, but will weight a lot more. Hardwoods are
superior
> > in cross grain compression, so they would be good for rub strips but
add a
> > lot of weight without adding any more strength.
> >
> > It appears if you select the lightest wood from the SPF stack you could
> get
> > a good strength to weight ratio but you may not have the lightest for
that
> > group in your local lumber yard. Also to take advantage of the best
> > strength to weight ratio wood you have to optimize the size to the
> strength
> > requirement, and that may not give you the best fastener strength (for
> > example often I will call out a bigger size than I need for bending
> > strength because I need to get enough fasteners into each end to handle
> the
> > loads).
> >
> > Again I would just use what is available and inexpensive, if you want
the
> > lightest wood for cheap, just see which in the stack "feel" light
(though
> > you still do not know what you are getting).
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wayne steffens [SMTP:wsteffen@mr.net]
> > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 5:50 PM
> > To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
> > Subject: Re: baidarka Which Spruce?
> >
> > Peter, thanks for that voluminous amount of info. Shouldnt white pine
be
> in
> > the spf somewhere, or is it only sold as such? I know we've got a bit
of
> > that in our lumberyards.
> >
> > The reason I would like to find spruce is not to be authentic. Tne
reason
> I
> > would like to use spruce is to be light. Cedar is just as light or
lighter
> > but not as strong, from what I've heard. Rot resistance has been
discussed
> > recently, and I dont give a hoot about that because I dont think it
> matters
> > for a boat that spends most of its time out of the water. The fact that
> the
> > people who originally built Caribou kayaks chose spruce and I am too is
> > mostly coincidence. They didnt really have much choice because spruce
is
> > the dominant long driftwood in their area. It just so happens its a
fairly
> > good wood to use, too. I would like to be authentic in the sense that
most
> > Caribou kayaks are very long, and weight was (and is) a consideration
when
> > building one. I dont think I can build a lighter kayak with other
readily
> > available woods. I may use cedar for the ribs for the same reason,
> although
> > ash is stronger and readily available. Again its a coincidence that
cedar
> > was the rib of choice for the original builders. If there was an even
> > lighter, cheaper, readily available wood that was suitable for ribs, I
> > would use that instead. If I just grabbed the first clear boards I saw
> from
> > the SPF pile when looking for gunnels, I would probably end up with a
boat
> > that would me much heavier than it need be. There was a considerable
> weight
> > difference in the 1x4's I looked at. Most of the lighter ones looked
like
> > spruce.
> >
> > BTW, I Built a paddle out of Doug fir and dont plan on doing it again
as
> > long as lighter woods are available. Its strong as heck but now the
paddle
> > comes in handy only when I need to bang crusty creosote out of the wood
> > boiler chimney, or to prop the woodshed door shut during gales (like
right
> > now). I know other people have used it succesfully though.
> >
> > You're right that people shouldnt overlook the other choices, and I
> > wouldnt hesitate to use another lightweight wood if spruce couldnt be
> > found, especially with a smaller boat. In fact, I might have already
done
> > that with the Aleut boat I built. The wood is not as light as some
known
> > spruce boards I have, but the boat will still be under 40lbs when
> finished.
> > Of course its also 11 feet shorter than the Caribou will be. ;-) and it
> has
> > much smaller and shorter gunnels. But I found it by looking for the
best,
> > lightest, straightest grain, most "sprucey" (and cheapest) wood I could
> > find. These other boards that might be spruce or might not, while very
> > nice and probably just fine for my use, are not cheap. They will cost
me
> > $40 per boat. If I hadnt asked my canoe friend what they were, I
probably
> > would have just used them. However, aspen AFAIK, is not known for its
use
> > in boatbuilding, but is well known for its use in such unstructural
things
> > as toothpicks and pulp. I'm not convinced they are aspen though, so I
may
> > use them yet.
> >
> > The whole concept of authenticity is elusive to me, and I dont pursue
it
> > that religiosly. What is authentic? Is it better? Better than what? If
an
> > "authentic" boat has nails in it, is it no longer authentic? If I build
a
> > boat with nothing but wood, hide and sinew, is it authentic or a
replica?
> > The decisions on what materials and processes to use are different for
> > everyone, as they always have been. Weight, strength, suitability and
> > availability have always been considerations, and now we have to throw
> cash
> > into the equation too. I think many of us are on this list because we
have
> > an interest in building semi-authentic boats or using "traditional"
> > materails and processes. In my case the decision to go "authentic" or
> > "practical" "lighter" or "least expensive" is often completely
arbitrary
> > and based on my mood at a particular moment. I had planned to use no
glues
> > in my Aleut boat, but when it started to drag on and I was getting
> > impatient I slapped some epoxy on in a couple places. So why didnt I
want
> > to use epoxy? Mostly because it sounded more fun. I had planned to use
> > canvas because its a natural fiber, then one day I compulsively decided
> > nylon would be a lot more natural (and sexy). My reasons for building
are
> > very different from the original builders. Sometimes I'd rather walk
> > someplace and sometimes I'd rather drive. I know that Caribou kayak
> > builders would walk the extra mile to get cedar for ribs rather than
use
> > willow, if they had the time to do so. I'll bet if the caribou had
arrived
> > and they needed a boat, they wouldnt hesitate to use willow.
> >
> > Many of us take great pains to sand, polish and finish our "authentic"
> > frames. Is that authentic? Not in most cases, but it brings pleasure to
> the
> > builder so its worth the effort to some. Me, I'd rather not. I might
> > however spend hours playing with bone parts, moosehide, and even blood
> > glue, not so much to be authentic, but because it might be fun. In many
> > ways, I dont think any of our boats are really authentic no matter how
> hard
> > we try. In other senses though they are very authentic, in that we all
> > build using the best materials available for our own purposes (which is
> > usually pleasure, rather than a hunting tool) and modify the designs to
> our
> > own ends. Any "traditional" authenticity or lack thereof is due to
whether
> > I feel it would be more pleasureable at any particular point in time.
OK,
> > that is QUITE enough babbling from me. ;-)
> >
> > Wayne
> > -
> > Baidarka Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be
> > reproduced outside Baidarka or Baidarka archives without author's
> > permission
> > Submissions: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
> > Subscriptions: baidarka-request@lists.intelenet.net
> > Searchable archive: http://rtpnet.org/robroy/baidarka
> > -
> > Baidarka Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be
> > reproduced outside Baidarka or Baidarka archives without author's
> permission
> > Submissions: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
> > Subscriptions: baidarka-request@lists.intelenet.net
> > Searchable archive: http://rtpnet.org/robroy/baidarka
> >
> >
>
> -
> Baidarka Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be
> reproduced outside Baidarka or Baidarka archives without author's
permission
> Submissions: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
> Subscriptions: baidarka-request@lists.intelenet.net
> Searchable archive: http://rtpnet.org/robroy/baidarka
>
-
Baidarka Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be
reproduced outside Baidarka or Baidarka archives without author's permission
Submissions: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions: baidarka-request@lists.intelenet.net
Searchable archive: http://rtpnet.org/robroy/baidarka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Mon May 01 2000 - 01:00:02 EDT