Texalium as an approved material?

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 11 Feb 2006, 07:19

The Texalium deadline is approaching. Soon, if not already, it will be discussed within the TC. This time 'round, I think the owners should be involved. It is after all, a class controlled by it's owners, correct?
What do you all think? Use it, or lose it?

awallin · Post by **awallin** » 12 Feb 2006, 13:32

Hi Steve,

My personal opinion is that any surface coating which primary purpose is cosmetic rather than structural should be allowed.

If anyone has any smart ideas on how to change or add to class rule D.2.1, I am sure the technical sub-committee would be interested in hearing about them !

Or, would it be sufficient to address the specific case of texalium and add to D.2.1(4)

the reinforcement shall be glass fibre in any of the following forms: roving, tape, chopped strand mat, woven cloth, and Texalium

this would then restrict builders to only 'Texalium' which probably is a very specific product name for a product sold by only one company (hexcell?).

Any other ideas for wording ?

Anders

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 12 Feb 2006, 16:52

How 'bout:
"Materials added to GRP that have the sole purpose of cosmetics, and are easily identified as such shall be allowed."
This may be a situation that the material in question be submitted and approved on a case by case basis.

Hiljoball · Post by **Hiljoball** » 12 Feb 2006, 17:12

I am just returning to R/C racing after many years absence racing full-sized boats. I do not yet have an IOM. I am planning to build one. I will not vote on this survey.

I have been reading this and other boards to re-educate myself on current trends.

I am not sure what this survey is asking as I read about two issues.

1. Should an exisitng group of boats built with Texalium be grandfathered and allowed to compete in championship events.

2. Should Texalium be allowed as a construction material.

These are two very different issues.

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 12 Feb 2006, 18:36

Hiljoball wrote:I am just returning to R/C racing after many years These are two very different issues.

Hello, John.
We hope to see you in the IOM class soon.
You are correct, there are 2 different issues on Texalium being discussed around the forums.
However, if Texalium is allowed within the rules as a permitted material, that would take care of the issue with boats that are currently about to become illegal.

ole_peder · Post by **ole_peder** » 12 Feb 2006, 21:03

Basically Texalium should never have been approved used under the current rules at all. We are forced in a direction by builders who, on purpose or not, has interpreted the rule wrong. A similiar issue was the 20mm piece of string in the Black Magic sails which was deemed not legal.

If you are a amateur builder, it isn't a big deal, but if one is an professional builder the illegal boats has to be replaced or the money have to be refunded.

Yes the class is a owner driven class, but that doesn't mean that every issue has to be decided by polls. We must be careful so we don't loose the overall picture.

The basis is the class rules, they have to be followed. If in doubt have them interpreted, as we have in many occasions. If we are not satisfied with the result we have to propose changes to avoid misunderstandings. But these changes must be seen in conjunction with the rest of the rules.

RoyL · Post by **RoyL** » 12 Feb 2006, 21:36

I very much believe in the concept of an informed class, open and candid discussion followed by a democratic vote.

There are, in fact, two issues regarding Texalium. First, as Steve has pointed out is the question of whether texalium should be included as a legal building material. This question can be decided by the class at any time. I would think that should the class decide to make texalium legal, it simply be added by name to the list of permitted building materials.

The second is the more pressing question-- the status of the pre-existing texalium boats. If the class does nothing, it is my understanding that the current "grandfathered" boats become completely illegal for all purposes at the end of March. If the class does not want to decide the overall texalium question immediately, we need at least to decide how to treat these pre-existing boats. The range of choices can be anywhere from a complete ban to complete grandfathered legality for all purposes.

As the new head of the technical committee I believe it is the committee's principal job to inform the class of the pros and cons of the issues involved and let the members decide.

One important thing that I would like to hear more about are the structural benefits (if any) of texalium. I have heard annecdotal evidence that this material is stronger than standard fiberglass. I have also head stories that the coating does nothing other than change the appearance of the fiberglass. Anyone have any hard evidence?

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 12 Feb 2006, 21:41

Has anyone done or know the results of material testing of Texalium? If if fundamentally changes the structural characteristics of fiberglass IMHO it should not be legal. If it truly is decorative only, IMHO again, it should be legal.

To poll the class members without any fact based reasons to vote one way or another is akin to a popularity contest, and probably just as valid.

Of course, if this poll is to be used to judge class member interest in determining whether Texalium should be investigated as a legal building material, then the Technical Committee has its marching orders: find material testing info on this material, summarize the facts, present them to the WC and decide whether it's worth getting RSD to change their definition.

ReyNewman · Post by **ReyNewman** » 13 Feb 2006, 03:05

If you Google Texalium, you will find a number of exagerated claims of its properties - here is a quote for the Technofibre Carboflex 130 squash racket

"Texalium developed by Hexcel is an exclusive fibre mostly used in aircraft and spacecraft industries. The secret is its stiffness to mass ratio is exceptional and its specific weaving provides unprecedented power and resilience despite its light weight. The results, Texalium provides increased ball speed while maintaining outstanding feel."

So, to help everyone gain a better understanding of Texalium for this debate, here are some facts about Texailum to help everyone understand what it is and what it isn't.

Texalium is a brand name of Hexcel Corporation, which produces a range of composite materials.

Texalium is a fiberglass fabric that is surface coated with different materials to a thickness of 200 Angstroms, or 200 billionths of a meter, to produce very attactive finishes. Other than the coating, it is otherwise a std fabric. The coating is applied to the surface only - if you slightly stretch the fabric, you will see how thin the the coating is and that it is applied after the fabric is woven as there is no coating where the yarns cross. The coating is also easily damaged.

Texalium is available in the folowing finishes (last I checked):

- Silver (aluminum coating)
- Gold (radium coating)
- Black (graphite coating)
- Blue (methyl)
- Red (don't know the coating material)

Texalium comes in the following fabrics all 2x2 twills:

--> Style 1102, 8.5oz/yd sq, 17x17 construction
--> Style 1035, 5.85oz/yd sq; 35x35 construction
--> Style 122, 3.16oz/yd sq, 65x58 construction

There are other materials now available that resemble Texalium but made by other manufacturers.

I've played a bit with Texalium 5.85oz (I even learned how to make a laminate look like the silver and gold fabrics) and found no difference in similar laminates one with Texalium and the other with 6oz S-Glass. Of course that wasn't much of scientifc experiment.

You can download data sheets for Texalium from the Hexcel website and compare the physical properties of Texalium with other S-Glass materials.

Regards,

Rey

ReyNewman · Post by **ReyNewman** » 13 Feb 2006, 03:27

I forgot to add that Texalium is typically used only as the outer ply of a composite while the other ply's are standard fiberglass.

Rey

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 13 Feb 2006, 03:48

RoyL wrote: One important thing that I would like to hear more about are the structural benefits (if any) of texalium. I have heard annecdotal evidence that this material is stronger than standard fiberglass. I have also head stories that the coating does nothing other than change the appearance of the fiberglass. Anyone have any hard evidence?

I do not have personal experience using Texalium as a building material. I do, however have knowledge of different ways to build composite products. If stiffness is the concern, I can tell you that Texalium will not be superior to methods that are already available. For instance, it is not illegal to produce an IOM hull in an autoclave. IOM hulls have already been produced using vacuum bagging, and a more superior method, infusion. These modern, high tech procedures are so much more important in making a stiff light product than a thin film of aluminum stamped to the surface of some glass cloth. In fact, the aluminum will do nothing for strength.
Yes, you may find that Texalium could be stiffer than x,y, or z type cloth, but it is not the metal film that does so. It is the weave and style of the cloth, and that particular cloth is already legal as far as our rule is concerned.
We are not talking about a material that will change the class forever. This has already been proven. Texalium boats have been in competition across the world, and built by a few different manufacturers. The Texalium boats are NOT superior in any way to their counterparts.
Allowing Texalium into the class will show that while we are a strict, tightly controlled class, we are not afraid to accept new and modern technology, so long as we don't obsolete our current fleet, or price ourselves out of popularity. Cost is only slightly higher than regular cloth (maybe $10-$15 US more for a boat), but then you dont have to paint, so it could turn to be a wash in the end.

ole_peder · Post by **ole_peder** » 13 Feb 2006, 16:42

The Texalium doesn't enhance the performance of a boat, only the look of it. So for the sake of competiveness I hav no problems in accepting the Texalium as material.

However the result will be that it is legal to use any legal material in combination with glass or maybe as an substitition for glass in a FRP construction. This is also ok.

We had the discussion on pigmented glassfibre used in the Dsico, can Texalium come in under this definition? Basicly
it is a pigmentation?

Say we allowed Texalium an only Texalium to legalize the excisting boats. What would happen then? May be we are going down a path where it is illegal if it isn't listed......

As I have written before it isn't a good situation to be forced into a decision like this. It's easier to get a forgivnes than permission??

My sugestion will be to accept the boats involved, and still ban Texalium.

Everybody should learn a lesson from this, don't stretch the rules.

awallin · Post by **awallin** » 13 Feb 2006, 17:01

ole_peder wrote: We had the discussion on pigmented glassfibre used in the Dsico, can Texalium come in under this definition? Basicly
it is a pigmentation?

This reminds me of something that I thought about a while ago.

Is the use colored epoxy resin within the class rules ? Many suppliers only supply a colored hardener with the more or less clear resin, and when mixed the epoxy has a tint of red, blue, green, or whatever...

Anders

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 13 Feb 2006, 21:25

I agree with Ole - we may start down a slippery slope by allowing specific brand name products - what about some other brand of metal laced fiberglass? If it's not labelled Texalium, would it be legal?

IMHO, uphold the RSD's ban on Texalium but grandfather present boats.

Michael Bourke · Post by **Michael Bourke** » 20 Mar 2006, 03:56

I have a tex. deck. It has developed a lot of pin holes and leaks quite badly. For this reason alone I am not in favour of them. I suspect a standard deck would not have developed the leaks.

I am also a firm believer in afforability for the class.

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 20 Mar 2006, 05:38

Michael Bourke wrote:I have a tex. deck. It has developed a lot of pin holes and leaks quite badly. For this reason alone I am not in favour of them. I suspect a standard deck would not have developed the leaks.

I am also a firm believer in afforability for the class.

I'm sorry to hear your deck is leaking.
The reason it is leaking has nothing to do with the fact that it is texalium. The most probable reason is poor UV protection in the epoxy that was used, and the fact that the Tex was likely laid up as single layer. It did not leak when it was new, right? It is the resin that is failing.
As for cost, yes Texalium is more expensive than regular glass, but then it also does not need to be painted. The overall cost of a finished Tex boat versus a professionally painted boat would be a wash. In fact, if the painting were outsourced (a cost to the builder), using Texalium for cosmetic purposes would be LESS expensive.

The high cost of a production IOM is due to the time involved, not the materials used.

IOMICA Forum

Texalium as an approved material?

Do you want Texalium as an approved building material?

Texalium as an approved material?