IOMICA Forum

hi

Can i use Texalium to buil a IOM Hull ?

Regards

J.Camilo

It looks to me like you can. The materials are permitted, and it's not pigmented, expanded, or honeycombed.
I think it would be worth an interpretation though. As a commercial builder (if you are), you can request one without the aid of your NCA. Send it to VC Technical, Charles Détriché, vctechnical@iomclass.org. Posting here unfortunately, won't get you a formal answer.

Simple question - what is TEXALIUM.

Richard Rowan wrote:Simple question - what is TEXALIUM.

It's an aluminum/fiberglass composite. See more here:
http://www.hexcelcomposites.com/Markets ... efault.htm

texalium is "...Texaliumâ„¢ is a new reinforced material based on glass fabrics. Aluminium is applied through a special treatment on one side of the glass fabric only. Through this special treatment you get a unique and shiny surface.

So it's fiberglass + aluminium+ epoxy resyne

Regards
Camilo

Now this is far more interesting than some of the no-brainer things the class gets into.

I would think that the ruling could be that for the outside skin only, this would be acceptable, but as an inner laminate, unacceptable.

On the outer laminate, the aluminized film is akin to a coating of paint or gel coat.

As an outside laminate, the aluminum would be seen (and might be very attractive). But if you use more than one layer, then you cannot see through the inner layers (because of the aluminum deposition) and therefore cannot verify the laminate makeup (to check on non-permitted materials).

How one would verify that there was more than one laminate of this material might be a problem.

My guess on the outcome -- rejected on the basis of verification problems.

A similar visual effect (the aluminum coating flashing in the sunlight) might be obtained using a gel coat that contains flake aluminum as we see on all the bass boats around the country.



Ralph

Ralph has highlighted a good point and made me question the benefits of the rules governing construction material. Clearly this rule is intended to stop the use of carbon fibre or Kevlar but it could potential stop Jorge building a unique, attractive boat that I don’t think would have any competitive advantage. It also makes it harder for home builders like me to get good even gel coat coverage and if someone were to make a carbon IOM it would only have a tiny competitive advantage given by a few grams more corrector weight.


Chris

ralph kelley wrote: But if you use more than one layer, then you cannot see through the inner layers (because of the aluminum deposition) and therefore cannot verify the laminate makeup (to check on non-permitted materials).

How one would verify that there was more than one laminate of this material might be a problem.


Ralph

The rule is not written as such that you are required to be able to see through the hull. It only stipulates that the resin be unpigmented so you can see the laminates It does not require the reinforcment to be see-through as well.
If I use a black gelcoat, I could easily have a laminate of carbon as the outer layer and you would not be able to tell the difference. Keep in mind, you can't see through thermoplastic either, but it is allowed.

If the Texalium is disallowed, I would expect the rule to be re-written as well.

When making this decision, I think it would be simple; Materials: metal and fiberglass. Are they permitted? YES.
Is the resin pigmented? NO.
Is it honeycombed? NO.
Is the interior un-coated? YES (or so I would expect)

There is no rule that requires yo uto ask "can I see ALL the laminates?
Metal is an allowed material. If one were to choose to laminate 2 very thin sheets of aluminum, I don't see how anyone could tell them they could not use this process with the rules we have right now.

Hi Steve,

When making this decision, I think it would be simple; Materials: metal and fiberglass. Are they permitted? YES.

I don't know if it would be that simple... I'm not an expert on composites and moulding (as you well know ) but it seems to me that the rules (as presently written) allow (among other things) metal and "glass fibre reinforced plastic" (which I guess is what you get when you wet out fibreglass with resin). That, to me, seems to imply that fibreglass (resin impregnated) to which a piece of metal has been "glued" is OK, but whether a layup made up of texalium is OK or not depends on whether texalium is glass-fibre or something else... Because it has metal interwoven - it could be construed as "something else"... The rule makes no provision for "metal&glass-fibre reinforced plastic"...

Of course, I could be way off base - I'm a complete novice when it comes to composites. Luckily we have better qualified people to deal with this kind of ruling.

I think a formal RFI from POR would definitely be warranted...

Marko

Secretary wrote:Hi Steve,


I don't know if it would be that simple... I'm not an expert on composites and moulding (as you well know ) but it seems to me that the rules (as presently written) allow (among other things) metal and "glass fibre reinforced plastic" (which I guess is what you get when you wet out fibreglass with resin). That, to me, seems to imply that fibreglass (resin impregnated) to which a piece of metal has been "glued" is OK, but whether a layup made up of texalium is OK or not depends on whether texalium is glass-fibre or something else... Because it has metal interwoven - it could be construed as "something else"... The rule makes no provision for "metal&glass-fibre reinforced plastic"...

Of course, I could be way off base - I'm a complete novice when it comes to composites. Luckily we have better qualified people to deal with this kind of ruling.


I think a formal RFI from POR would definitely be warranted...

Marko

This is where I see the problem arising... it SHOULD be that simple. You must base the interpretation on the rule that is in place right now. It does not matter if it is "something else". The materials are allowed, and there is no restriction as to how you are to assemble the allowed materials. Going "outside the box" should not be part of the interpretation. you take the rule and read it. If the materials fit within the rule the way it's written, you allow it.
Now, that is not to say that maybe we don't want something to happen. Lets assume they come up with some kind of fiberglass that far surpasses everything we have on the market today Lighter and better than your best carbon. And it costs, $500 for enough material to build an IOM. Keep in mind, it is still chemically categorized as "glass fibre". Is it allowed? YES. Do we want it? NO. With that example, the rule would have to be re-written to prohibit that material, but until we change the rule it is allowed.
I would expect the interpretation to read something like "as of our current rules cycle the material in question is permitted." Then, I would also make sure that the builder and the class are informed of the situation, and the class will have to vote on the rule change. If the builder knows his boat will eventually be ruled out, he would be foolish to continue with the material.

As for the Formal RFI, POR does not need to submit it if Jorge is a commercial builder.

Marko, thanks for posting. It is nice to know that committee members are involved.

Marko, thanks for posting. It is nice to know that committee members are involved.

We're watching you, never fear...

You must base the interpretation on the rule that is in place right now. It does not matter if it is "something else". The materials are allowed, and there is no restriction as to how you are to assemble the allowed materials.

That's just it Steve... My "reading" of the existing rule would lead me to think that the permitted material is "glass fibre reinforced plastic" (as written by the rules) - which (to me) refers to "cured resin reinforced with fibreglass" as the allowed material. There are other materials (metal among them) that can also be used - you can even "glue" metal to fibreglass using resin...

But if you made a hull layup using texal..-whatever - you would, in a sense, be using a material that could be best described as "glass & metal fibre reinforced plastic" - which probably doesn't fit any of the permitted materials listed... See where I'm going here?

I could be wrong, of course... As I said before - I'm a complete novice to the moulding techniques (and terminologies)... I'm still trying to figure out if it's OK to pigment the first layer (or first couple of layers) of epoxy that you brush into the mould (since that's a "gelcoat", right?)

It goes without saying that the above is only my own personal (uninformed & unqualified) opinion...

Marko

The rule specifies that metal as well as glass fibres are allowed. It does not specify how you are allowed to apply them together.

But if you made a hull layup using texal..-whatever - you would, in a sense, be using a material that could be best described as "glass & metal fibre reinforced plastic" - which probably doesn't fit any of the permitted materials listed... See where I'm going here?

With all due respect, Texalium IS fiberglass. To quote the manufacturer "Texalium is a fibrglass fabric with a proprietary finish and a thin coating of aluminum on the surface of the fabric. " The aluminum coating, per the manufacturer, is 200 Angstroms in thickness (an Angstrom is one billionth of a meter) or 200 billionths of a meter in thickness. It is used primarily for cosmetic purposes. What Texalium is NOT is a metal reinforced fiberglass fabric.


Rey

Steve Landeau wrote:The rule specifies that metal as well as glass fibres are allowed. It does not specify how you are allowed to apply them together.

Actually, Steve, I don't think that's quite true. I think the rule is very specific about the use of glass fibres - that is, glass fibres themselves are not AFAICS a permitted material - "glass fibre reinforced plastic" is (a permitted material).

That seems pretty specific (i.e. on the usage)...

ReyNewman wrote:With all due respect, Texalium IS fiberglass.

In that case, Rey, there isn't a problem... As I said earlier, I've never seen texalium (nor do I have any "agenda" for making it illegal - or, for that matter, any power to do so if I wanted to ).

Just seemed like a good discussion over the semantics of the class rules...

Cheers,

Marko

Based on all the prior posts it would seem that "Texalium" is "glass fibre reinforced plastic with a thin coating of aluminum on the surface of the fabric".

I have no idea then if this is allowed under the IOM rules. On the one hand, the overall concept in the IOM Rules is that anything not specifically permitted is prohibited and "glass fibre reinforced plastic with aluminum coating" is not specifically allowed in the rules. On the other hand both aluminum and glass fibre reinforced plastic are permitted materials.

Got me how it should work out, but it doesn't seem to be "certain" one way or the other.

keep relax !
who will want such a boat if there is no advantage on the finishing line ?
remember you can be punched many times from the starting signal to the end of the race...
is this material OK with such living conditions ?
if no, it's not a problem to think about altering the rules...
bye, Rémi

SteveL said:

Marko, thanks for posting. It is nice to know that committee members are involved.

Hi Steve,
Interesting - my comment - committee members are also IOM sailors/builders etc. and as such we have our independant/own ideas ('right' and 'wrong') as such, as well as our 'official' stances. Some times the two are the same, but occasionaly, I for one separate the two (eg. as a measurer and as an owner I may have very differnet views on things, ha,ha).
Anyway, back to the important issue here, reading quickly the class rules, I come to the same conclusion as Marko, GRP is allowed and I can't see that 'glass fibres' are specifically allowed alone, not that you could realy use them that way eh?. My question would be, would a IOM class measurer be capable of seeing that the material was texaliumGRP and not std GRP. What does it look like - can you actually see the aluminium?A photo would be nice Jorge!
That's my penny's worth, for what it's worth.

My question would be, would a IOM class measurer be capable of seeing that the material was texaliumGRP and not std GRP. What does it look like - can you actually see the aluminium?A photo would be nice Jorge!

Go to http://www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_carbonfiber.html and select
"Raw Fabrics" for a nice picture of Texalium fabrics (Silver and Gold.)

Typicaly, Texalium is used as the outer (surface) layer of a laminate to give it a silver (aluminum finish). It also comes in gold (radium finish). It is used in a variety of applications from snowboards to pick guards on guitars (check one out at http://www.cmkpickguards.com/cmktexalium.html )

The coating on Texalium is applied to one side of the fabric only, so the uncoated side looks like a regular fabric. So if you were looking at the inside of a hull whose outer fabric layer is Texalium (with the treated side outward), it would look to you just like a regular hull which has been painted with a silver or gold paint.



Rey

ReyNewman wrote:

My question would be, would a IOM class measurer be capable of seeing that the material was texaliumGRP and not std GRP. What does it look like - can you actually see the aluminium?A photo would be nice Jorge!

Go to http://www.robotcombat.com/marketplace_carbonfiber.html and select
"Raw Fabrics" for a nice picture of Texalium fabrics (Silver and Gold.)

Typicaly, Texalium is used as the outer (surface) layer of a laminate to give it a silver (aluminum finish). It also comes in gold (radium finish). It is used in a variety of applications from snowboards to pick guards on guitars (check one out at http://www.cmkpickguards.com/cmktexalium.html )


The coating on Texalium is applied to one side of the fabric only, so the uncoated side looks like a regular fabric. So if you were looking at the inside of a hull whose outer fabric layer is Texalium (with the treated side outward), it would look to you just like a regular hull which has been painted with a silver or gold paint.
Rey

Interesting, Rey.
Looks just like the expensive deck option that Byerley offers. Can anyone confirm what he's using?

Hi

Nice boat in texalium in http://apmv.planetaclix.pt

Very nice comments about the texalium

thanks for everybody for the help

Regards
Camilo

[/img]

Steve,
Yes this is the material used on some of Jeff's boats.
A material that Bill Wright tracked down over here 3 years ago & built a complete hull from it.
As i understand, its lightest weight in fabric is approx 290g per sq mtr/yard. Id guess this would restrict buiders to only 1 layer per hull/deck.

Cheers
Brad Gibson

Having read a bit of the web site literature on Texalium, I get the impression that it's only a cosmetic thing - simply an 'attractive' coating to make the products look high tec. Very pretty, but.....

Has anyone (IOMICA) answered the original question about hexaliums legality? I hope it's ok for the sake of those who already own a hexalium hull.

Hi, Roy.
I would be shocked if the TC were able to find this material illegal.
And for the sake of those that do own Texalium boats, if they do find it illegal, I would hope that we could vote the material into the class. there is no good reason not to have it allowed.

G. Morning everyone

Roy,
If I know well, and I think Positive, in April 15 (one mounth ago...), Jorge Camilo got the question to the T. C. about the material legality.
The answer, till now, isn't negative (then, is positive)...
Why are you in doubt ?

We will talk about in Madrid next week end.

Regards
José Cardoso
POR67

Hi Jose/Steve,
I too would be shocked , (and rather worried) if the material is illegal since most of us think it's not, and if we're wrong it means we are interpreting the rules in a different way to those who take the decisions, which isn't very encouraging.
My only 'doubt' comes from the fact the there hasn't been an 'official' response to the question of legality. I tend to agree with Steve in that as far as us mere mortals can tell, looking at the rules it appears perfectly legal.
But what about the question of it only being a 'cosmetic' thing. Am I correct?

VCmeasurement wrote: But what about the question of it only being a 'cosmetic' thing. Am I correct?

I think this is also irrelevant. Cosmetic, or structural, it should still be fine.
At the risk of sounding redundant, they are both permitted materials, and there are no requirements or restrictions as to how they get attached to each other.

I'd like to quote Marko's earlier comments.

Secretary wrote:

Steve Landeau wrote:The rule specifies that metal as well as glass fibres are allowed. It does not specify how you are allowed to apply them together.

Actually, Steve, I don't think that's quite true. I think the rule is very specific about the use of glass fibres - that is, glass fibres themselves are not AFAICS a permitted material - "glass fibre reinforced plastic" is (a permitted material).

My reading of the rules is consistent with Marko's. I believe, on no official basis, that it is only "glass fibre reinforced plastic" which is permitted.

Secretary wrote:

ReyNewman wrote:With all due respect, Texalium IS fiberglass.

In that case, Rey, there isn't a problem...

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".

Secretary wrote:As I said earlier, I've never seen texalium (nor do I have any "agenda" for making it illegal - or, for that matter, any power to do so if I wanted to). Just seemed like a good discussion over the semantics of the class rules...

I feel the same way. I think the stuff looks great, and the hulls I've seen that use it are really eye-catching and very attractive. I have no agenda for making it illegal, and I have no power to do so. As far as I know, there has been no interpretation on this issue. My unofficial opinion, however, is that it does not meet the class rules if used in a hull.

This is a good discussion of the class rules. Let's keep it professional and impersonal, please, and discuss the questions of what the rules seem to say, and whether the material in question seems to meet these rules.

Dear Sailors,
I just have 2 questions.
1. Is it more costly than the permited material?
2. Will it make the boat go faster and have unfair advantage over the others?

Ed

edmorales wrote:I just have 2 questions.
1. Is it more costly [...]?
2. Will it make the boat go faster [...]?

Hi Ed

Key questions about the class rules are more fully outlined in the topic "What are the IOM Class Rules all about?" in this area of the forum. At the least, we must distinguish what the rules actually say (interpretation) from what we think the rules should say (rule changes). Your questions partly deal with what the rules should say, I think, rather than what they currently actually say. No matter how much anyone might wish that the rules said something, the first issue is to explore whether they currently actually say something else. And I guess I'm trying to say that, in considering what the rules actually do say, we need to avoid working "backwards" from what we wish they should say...

On the issue of what the rules should say, as I see it (to paraphrase an earlier post), the IOM class rules should maintain some sort of level playing field, and should maintain a stable level playing field. I am convinced this is one of the key success factors of the class. The fact that something is not more costly, or that it apparently has no effect upon performance, does not, in itself, make it desirable.

On the other hand, it is clear that, to stay alive, fresh, and attractive, the class must allow movement, change, development, adaptation, call it whatever you like. The very difficult judgement call, of course, is for the class owners to successfully identify what changes they think make long-term sense, and what changes do not...

mr. chairman,
wow, i'm going to need a lawyer to digest all of that in one sitting. so if the answers to both my questions are both no, then i see no reason why it shouldnt be allowed. of course, i'm no expert. i'm still trying to gain a better understanding of the class rules.
regards
ed morales
p.s.
the material sure looks good!