TEXALIUM

[Jorge Camilo]

Dear Friends

-Texalium is not so much expensive

- Boats are stronger, less weight and.............beautifull hulls

Regards
J.Camilo

[ReyNewman]

My reading of the manufacturer's description is that Texalium is "a fibreglass fabric with a coating of aluminum". Again, on no official basis, I believe that if such a material is used to form a hull, the result is not "glass fibre reinforced plastic".

Lester,

I am not sure I understand your point. Permit me to expound.

Aluminum is an allowed material, is it not? Paint is an allowed material, is it not?

If you apply paint to a fiberglass fabric, let it cure and then use the fabric on a hull laminate, would it not be "glass fibre reinforced plastic"? What I just described is a method of application of a permitted material, in this case paint, onto another permitted material, fiberglass fabric.

Now, what if that paint is a silver colored paint which contains finely ground aluminum powder, as many types/brands of silver automotive paints do, such as those used for hot rods and custom motorcycles.
Would a hull laminate using that type paint not be "glass fibre reinforced plastic"?

Please correct me if my recollection is poor, but IOM class rules D.2.1(b)(2) says an external paint coating is optional, but neither specifies nor prohibits any method of application or type of paint. In fact, I could use a paint with finely ground depleted Uranium mixed as pigment, on the bulb couldn't I? I suppose I could run afoul of E.3.1 -

Now let's look at Texalium. A 1/20,000 of millimeter coating of aluminum powder is applied to the surface of the fiberglass fabric by some method along with a binding agent. The Texalium is then used in a laminate. If I sprayed silver paint (the kind with finely ground aluminum) on the fabric, I'd essentially be doing the same thing - applying a coat of aluminum powder along with a binder agent onto the fabric, and then use the fabric in a laminate.

IOM class rules D.2.1(a).1 says metal is permitted in the hull, and again, neither specifies nor prohibits any method of usage of metals or type of metals.

So, if paint is an allowed material without restrictions as to type or method of application, and aluminum is an allowed material, without restriction as to method of use, how can Texalium not be?

In my humble opinion, if:

1- both materials are allowed on the hull
2- the aluminum as used in Texalium is a coating on the surface of the fiberglass fabric, NOT weaved into or part of the fabric itself
3- the rules neither prescribe nor proscribe any methods by which paint or aluminum are applied to, or used in, the hull or fiberglass laminate or fiberglass fabric
4- the rules neither specify nor prohibit any type of GRP

Then I fail to see how a glass fiber fabric with an aluminum powder coating, similar to a coat of silver paint, can be seen as anything other than "glass fibre reinforced plastic" as per class rules.

Now, if someone produced a fiberglass fabric with a silver finish achieved via weaving fine aluminum strands into the weave of the fabric, then I would most certainly question whether that fabric qualifies as GRP.

Regards,

Rey Newman

PS: I am handling a piece of silver Texalium as I write this - I can see, touch, feel and dissect the material, so I am not writing this on a purely theoretical basis.

[Chairman]

If you apply paint to a fiberglass fabric, let it cure and then use the fabric on a hull laminate, would it not be "glass fibre reinforced plastic"? What I just described is a method of application of a permitted material, in this case paint, onto another permitted material, fiberglass fabric

Hi Rey

The key to my thinking is that "fiberglass fabric" is not a permitted material. What is in the list of permitted materials is something called "glass fibre reinforced plastic".

D.2.1 MATERIALS
(a) [...] the hull [...] shall be made of and joined using one or more of the following materials:
(1) metal, (2) wood; wood based products containing only permitted materials, (3) glass fibre reinforced plastic, (4) adhesive, (5) varnish; paint, (6) film covering materials which may be fibre reinforced, (7) elastomeric material, (8) thermoplastic, which may be moulded, containing only permitted materials.

Then, this permitted material, "glass fibre reinforced plastic", is defined to be the following:

(1) an external gel coat is optional and may be pigmented, (2) an external paint coating is optional, (3) the laminating resin shall be unpigmented, (4) the reinforcement shall be glass fibre in any of the following forms: roving, tape, chopped strand mat and woven cloth, (5) the interior shall be un-coated to permit non-destructive examination for verification of the material content.

In this definition, the reinforcement is restricted to being "glass fibre" (only!). Can't have metal (or anything else!) in there.

When you say that paint is permitted, certainly, but my understanding is that this is paint applied to "glass fibre reinforced plastic". As the rule says, an external paint coating to the glass fibre reinforced plastic is permitted. If paint was applied to the ""fiberglass fabric" which was the reinforcement component of "glass fibre reinforced plastic", then in my (unofficial!) opinion this takes the result out of class because this use of the paint is not permitted. Similarly for metal, which is otherwise permitted, but not in "glass fibre reinforced plastic"...

These are very fine distinctions that I'm drawing, of course, and I could well be completely wrong!

PS: I am handling a piece of silver Texalium as I write this - I can see, touch, feel and dissect the material, so I am not writing this on a purely theoretical basis.

Yup, it is lovely stuff, looks stunning when moulded into a hull!

[Chairman]

In fact, I could use a paint with finely ground depleted Uranium mixed as pigment, on the bulb couldn't I?

Hi Rey

Just to pick up on another issue about the number of angels who can dance on a pin-head... IOM Interpretation 2003-4 has something interesting to say about additives to adhesives and glass fibre reinforced plastic:

Items 1, 2 and 4:
Answers:
YES - in adhesives, NO - in glass reinforced plastic.
Discussion:
Fillers are permitted provided they are constituent parts of permitted materials listed in D.2.1. Fillers supplied as parts of a resin for laminating or/and gel coat are constituent parts of laminating resin and/or gel coat which are explicitly mentioned as parts of the glass fibre reinforced plastic. Another filler added by the builder to laminating resin and/or gel coat is not a constituent part of laminating resin and/or gel coat.

Fillers are a normal part of adhesives and therefore permitted.

This official interpretation helped me think that a metal coating to the glass fibre cloth is not permitted. But, if I apply this logic to paint, I'm then left scratching my head whether a builder can add "additives" to the paint being used... Can do it to adhesives, can't do it to GFRP. My best guess is that additives are a normal part of paint, if only to get the colour, drying qualities, surface finish, and thickness you want, so yes, by all means let's have a glow-in-the-dark bulb...

(Edited to correct spelling.)

[jandejmo]

The IOM rules are closed class rules where anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.

The class rules permit "glass fibre reinforced plastic".

Question: Is plastic reinforced with metal covered glass fibre permitted?
_

Are the class rules there to stop development? No!

Are the class rules there to stop development that has not been pre agreed by the members in accordance with the IOMICA constitution? Yes!
_

If metal is to be permitted as a material in glass fibre reinforced plastic the class needs to consider questions like:

Should metal be permitted only as a covering material for glass fibre? If so, should there be any restrictions as to the amount of metal?

Should metal be permitted as a reinforcement material? Should there then be restrictions on formed metal like honeycombs?


Regards

Jan

[ReyNewman]

Hi Lester,

Interesting how this discussion has evolved, isn't it.

Let me define GRP as I understand it so we have a common basis: GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic), also knowns as Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP), GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic), FRP (Reinforced Plastic), is defined as a polymer (plastic) matrix, either thermoset or thermoplastic, that is reinforced (combined) with a fiber or other reinforcing material with a sufficient aspect ratio (length to thickness) to provide a discernable reinforcing function in one or more directions. Other acronyms have developed over the years and their use dependes on geographical location or market use. For example, Fiber Reinforced Composites (FRC), Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP), and Polymer Matrix Composites (PMC) can be found in many references.

Fundamentally, GRP/FRP/GFRP is a method of combining materials to reinforce or build a structure such as a hull.

A common method of building a GRP structure is via laminating where a laminate (or composite) consists of a layer or layers of thermoset polymer and fiber reinforcement. There many methods of lamination, the most common of which is wet-layup on a mold.

Glass fibers are based on an alumina-lime-borosilicate composition. “Eâ€

[RoyL]

Funny, how many areas this touches on. Let me raise one other question that this discussion rasies.

It would seem to me that the issue of how fittings, materials and methods are currently deemed acceptable or not under the IOM rules is problematic.

To use the example of Texalium, it would seem that the way the system works is that if a builder made a boat out of this material the first person to pass on its legality is the local measurer. If the local measurer checks off the block on the measurement form stating that the boat is made out of a proper material, then the boat (if otherwise class legal) is issued a certificate. (Same would be true for fittings, sails etc.) And what is clear from the discussion here, is that reasonable people can have very different opinions about what is permitted.

After the first boat incorporating a novel material (or technique) is given a certificate, builders can go on for years making boats from such material until such time as someone requested a technical ruling or a measurer refused to accept a boat.

Only if a technical committee ruling is requested will a definite answer be given. Unfortunately, this could esily come some time after a number of boats have been out in the world. If the technical committee finds against the novel material it is faced with the prospect of seeming to have retroactively declared a number of boats illegal.

All in all, a tricky situation. I'm not sure what the proper answer should be. Perhaps techniques and materials need pre-certication?

[Chairman]

It would seem to me that the issue of how fittings, materials and methods are currently deemed acceptable or not under the IOM rules is problematic.

Hi Roy

This isn't peculiar to the IOM class. Any class has the same problem. Maybe it just seems worse in the IOM class because we have a combination of:

• Class rules which are closed, so that if it isn't explicitly permitted it is by default prohibited - not a comfortable way of thinking to many sailors!
• Enormous class popularity, so there are many owners out there pushing the envelope
• A resulting boat very evenly matched in performance against other IOM boats, so rather small differences make a difference, and significant gamesmanship yields perceptions of differences making a difference
• Very detailed, very carefully crafted rules of some subtlety

After the first boat incorporating a novel material (or technique) is given a certificate, builders can go on for years making boats from such material until such time as someone requested a technical ruling or a measurer refused to accept a boat.

The classic example of this was the "little bent wire" business some years ago. "Everyone knew" it was fine - until eventually an official request for an interpretation on a slightly different subject unearthed the problem.

All in all, a tricky situation. I'm not sure what the proper answer should be. Perhaps techniques and materials need pre-certification?

Well, I think this kind of discussion is part of the answer. Open, wide-ranging, and illustrative of the issues that need mature consideration.

[Steve Landeau]

The class rules permit "glass fibre reinforced plastic".


If metal is to be permitted as a material in glass fibre reinforced plastic the class needs to consider questions like:

Should metal be permitted only as a covering material for glass fibre? If so, should there be any restrictions as to the amount of metal?

Regards

Jan

Jan,
The rule specifies metal as an allowed building material within the hull. This means that I can use it to make all, or part of the hull. If the interpretation sets a precedence by telling us how we can or cannot use the metal as an allowed material, I think we will open the entire rule as it's written to a huge mess of unwanted (and un-needed) scrutiny.
With metal as a permitted material, I can vacuum bag a sheet of aluminum foil into my mold, reinforce it on the inside with fiberglass, then pop it out of the mold, and fair it with fiberglass on the outside.
If the rule is going to now tell me how I am allowed to glue my "allowed materials" together, we may end up with a rule that says we must use left hand threads on all our fasteners, too.
Is this really what we want?
I sure hope not.
This just goes to prove, that if you stare at the IOM rule too long, you can "interpret" any of it to make a boat illegal.

[jandejmo]

Steve,

The rule specifies metal as an allowed building material within the hull.

Yes, but I would be surprised if an interpretation would find metal as an allowed material within glass fibre reinforced plastic.


Regards

Jan

[jandejmo]

The IOM class rules introduced a concept that was new to radio sailors without experience of such rules in big boat sailing. That it was new was reflected in frequent questions like: "Where in the class rules can I read that I can't …".

That type of question is not very common anymore and it is perhaps time to turn the attention to another issue.

A certificate is not proof of – and is not intended to be a proof of – a boat being class legal.

A certificate only means that at the time a person authorised to carry out such controls checked the equipment he or she did not find anything wrong with it.

The responsibility that a boat is class legal when used for racing rests with the user. See RRS 78.1.

If you are an amateur builder it might be a good idea to try to understand the "message" in the CR – at least if your intention is to stay out of trouble. If you want to apply the CR in any other way it might involve quite an effort by a number of people. Contacting the national class association is a good first step. If the NCA is uncertain it should contact the IOMICA. If the IOMICA is uncertain is should ask the ISAF-RSD for an interpretation.

If you are a professional builder you will have a contractual relation with the buyer and it will be even more important to try to ensure yourself that a boat is likely to be found class legal if contested. Just relying on the findings of a class measurer is not advisable.

Whether you are an amateur or a professional builder it is adviseable to apply some degree of common sense in your approach to the CR. Otherwise you might find that you become unpopular with the class sailors, the class organisation, the class measurers, the certification authority, the class rules authority, the judges and/or the clubs. We need the support of these people to be able to enjoy radio sailing.


Regards

Jan

[Steve Landeau]

Whether your are an amateur or a professional builder it is adviseable to apply some degree of common sense in your approach to the CR.....

Regards

Jan

Jan, I couldnlt have said it better myself. How 'bout this; Putting these 2 items together may be of some help;
Here is Question #3 on the boat measurement form: Is the hull made of and joined using only the materials permitted by class rul D.2.1(a)?

And D.2.1(a) reads:Subject to (b) and (c), the hull, excluding fittings and remote control equipment but including any supports and containers for such items, shall be made of and joined using one or more of the following materials:
(1) metal
2...
(3)GFRP
(4) adhesive
and so on (the rest dont pertain to this topic)

I believe that the fabric conforms to the limitations of D.2.1.(b)
The metal is considered to be joined to the fabric, not part of it. The fabric was made, and then the metal was joined to it. In fact, you can even get different weaves to satisfy your appearance requirements.

Based on the vagueness of the word "JOINED" in rule D.2.1(a), one would expect to answer the measurment question "YES".
They are all permitted, and the rule does not specify how you can or cannot join them. Nor does it specify how one would join GFRP to wood either.

[jandejmo]

Steve and other class member,

How 'bout this; ...

I follow the IOM with great interest and sometimes I post something from ISAF-RSD or ISAF perspective. I don't want though to get involved in where the class is heading in regard to equipment.

My advice for the class is:

A. To find out if Texalium is permitted in GRP.

B. If not, to consider if it should be permitted. If so, consider what other developments could accur as a result of a proposed rule change.

C. To contact professional IOM equipment manufactures about the importance of reading the IOM CR as closed class rules and seeking advice when being unsure of a new construction or a new material.

D. To ask NCAs to make its members aware of the nature of the CR and the importance of seeking advice before trying something new.

Changing CR to allow something that is already in use is never a good solution. Even if it makes way for equipment that is good for the class it is not the way to run a class.


All the best

Jan

[tony g]

be carefull with this topic i donot want to have to replace my deck look at what happened with the last discussion over piece of wire stuck to thesail luff now he has closed up the 11 2cm holes given me more sail area and my boat got faster may be jeff will come up with a deck that weighs less and i can put the weight closser to the bottom of the boat

[jeffbyerley]

Hi,
I am posting this message following an email I received drawing my attention to the debate on Texalium.
On reading the comments made, I sent an email to Lester Gilbert stating that I had seen the forum and that it reinforced my views on forums and their usefullness.
I then received a request from Lester asking for replies to a number of questions.
After further correspondance, I initially answered some and also asked some of my own, including, why was the matter raised, by whom and for what reason?.
After further questions by Lester, I have decided to wait for the decision by the Technical Committee, which by the way I was not aware had been asked for until I suggested that it should be. ( It would be nice to be informed of this action and probably appropriate if you are the one involved!).I have also asked Lester to wait for the ruling before further correspondance on this matter.
I do not intend to justify the use of Texalium on this forum, nor do I think that officials of IOMICA or RSD, especially those on the Technical Committee should expound their views on the legality or not of materials etc., even if "unofficial".
If an interested party has reservations about an item, I would suggest they ask for an interpretation, not post their concerns on a forum and see what happens!.It raises the question of motivation, as well as others.
Hopefully this matter is settled in a logical and reasoned way, and that we learn from the experience.
I am now off to do some committee work on the 2005 IOM Worlds in sunny Queensland. Look forward to seeing you "downunder".
Jeff Byerley

[Chairman]

I have decided to wait for the decision by the Technical Committee, which by the way I was not aware had been asked for until I suggested that it should be. (It would be nice to be informed of this action and probably appropriate if you are the one involved!)

Hi Jeff

The IOMICA Technical Sub-Committee has received requests for interpretation on the following questions.
1) The most simple headsail boom swivel ...
[...]
4) Is Texalium permitted in moulding IOM hulls?

The official request was put in before your suggestion. The IOMICA Web site is the official means of communication with the IOM community.

[Steve Landeau]

Anyone know what is happening with the disappearing posts? Are we being moderated/edited or is it user/edited?