Re: Lost Board

From: Michael Lassner (mwlass@home.com-DeleteThis.com)
Date: Tue Jul 17 2001 - 19:02:36 PDT


X-OldHeader: From mwlass@home.com-DeleteThis.com  Tue Jul 17 18:55:08 2001
Return-Path: <mwlass@home.com-DeleteThis.com>
Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id SAA16569 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.58]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id SAA04298 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82]) by msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309E748B for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:55:07 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from C582048A ([24.12.13.101]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010718015505.ITDU10346.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@C582048A> for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:55:05 -0700
Message-ID: <003001c10f2d$b74e9510$6601a8c0@C582048A>
From: "Michael Lassner" <mwlass@home.com-DeleteThis.com>
To: <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>
References: <3B548449.101A0664@skolar.com-DeleteThis.com>
Subject: Re: Lost Board
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:02:36 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200


Isn't it relatively easy to replace the hourglass if your old one turned to
mush???

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Harris" <harris@skolar.com-DeleteThis.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list WIND_TALK"
<wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Lost Board

>
>
> So actually I was the big proponent of the double bolt bases about two
months
> ago when this subject came up. I've never thought the safety compared to
the
> hassle of not being able to move the base back an inch mattered. I bought
two
> when my latest base failed at Crissy. However, I found they were
extremely and
> overly floppy in terms of their strength. About one/two months later,
just from
> the abuse of sailing it really hard I had turned one into jello. I could
turn
> the whole thing around with my hand easy. I think if I landed a big jump
flat
> the pressure probably would have made the high part of the hourglass flex
so
> much it'd kiss the top of my board. I went back to a shop to try and see
about
> getting one that wasn't so floppy, but the guy at the shop said the recent
> chinook shipments of the two bolts were really floppy... and they were.
He said
> each shipment is a little different in strength and marked by a little
insignia
> on it. Anyway, I found myself having to make a choice between strength of
uni,
> two-bolt base and having the webbing. Nothing had all three. Irritated,
I
> exchanged some of the crappy ones I bought for a one bolt, webbing design
(still
> Chinook, although for whatever reason, far stronger than the two bolts) in
hopes
> that later Chinook will start make the two bolts not so floppy (which they
used
> to do). So if you're thinking about getting the two-bolt, I'd compare it
to
> some of the other hour glass ones for strength before you buy.
>
> greg
>
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > >I had a similar experience a mile out at 3rd in 4.5 SqM conditions.
The
> > >base had worked loose (unscrewed slightly). ...
> >
> > >>Mast base came out of the track. Seemed to be suddenly loose, it was
ok
> > >>for an hour of hard sailing. The mast & base (with nut) came free of
the
> > >>board at the conclusion of a jibe ...
> >
> > I also have had the mast base come loose at inopportune moments. I
switched
> > to the double-bolt mast base 4 years ago and have not had any
separations
> > since. I keep a base plate fixed to each board, so I just check the
> > tightness every 10'th session or so. The one time a double bolt base
came
> > loose while sailing, the plate slid forward and the second bolt kept it
from
> > coming out of the track. It was a big non-event.
> >
> > On the down side, the double bolt base reduces the range of mast track
> > position by an inch in each direction, and it is marginally heavier for
> > those who worry about every half ounce. For me, the increased safety is
> > worth it.
> >
> > My experience with double bolt bases has been very positive. I was
wondering
> > what others think of them.
> >
> > - John Morris
> > Menlo Park, CA
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:17 PST