I saw there was an old posting from 2003 about this but I thought I
restart it, with all the new updates that have come about with the 1
piece carbon and 1 piece aluminum whats everyones thoughts on the newer
aluminum booms.
Nathan
by trialzride » Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:14:50
Nathan
by Caleb3.. » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:49:32
> Nathan
by Florian Feuse » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:17:27
In all fairness, I have to admit that this particular boom was not
exactly new and had reduced diameter tubes - the manufacturer
recommended these models for lightweights only at the time. Their
carbon boom is great, BTW.
Florian
by Loop » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:22:38
by Dan Weis » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:20:18
It's comparatively economical to make a 1-piece alu boom, since molding
is not part of the process. Just roll flat sheet alu, tig weld, grind
smooth then bend on a mandrel. The lengh of the boom is not a large
variable item in the actual production, but the benefits of a single
piece (no joints to fail) and the fact that it can be swaged to create
thicker/thinner diameters allows tuning of the boom design to balance
strength/stiffness with user preferences.
In either event, realize that a stiff boom does wonders for sail
control, not only in terms of how directly we can get input to the rig
but maximizes all our tuning efforts. The larger the sail, the more
stiffness matters, both in terms of in-out flexing and rotational
flexing, and the choice of boom head means a great deal in controlling
the latter.
-Dan
> Nathan
by bsinclai » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:51:47
This would work great for someone like me who owns a lot of small sails, but
only a couple of jumbos. I could live with carrying a boom for each of the
big sails I own.
Marketing might be a problem. Does not seem like a real profitable item,
and shipping costs would be high unless the booms were shipped with the
sail. But who knows?
bs
> It's comparatively economical to make a 1-piece alu boom, since molding
> is not part of the process. Just roll flat sheet alu, tig weld, grind
> smooth then bend on a mandrel. The lengh of the boom is not a large
> variable item in the actual production, but the benefits of a single
> piece (no joints to fail) and the fact that it can be swaged to create
> thicker/thinner diameters allows tuning of the boom design to balance
> strength/stiffness with user preferences.
> In either event, realize that a stiff boom does wonders for sail
> control, not only in terms of how directly we can get input to the rig
> but maximizes all our tuning efforts. The larger the sail, the more
> stiffness matters, both in terms of in-out flexing and rotational
> flexing, and the choice of boom head means a great deal in controlling
> the latter.
> -Dan
>> I saw there was an old posting from 2003 about this but I thought I
>> restart it, with all the new updates that have come about with the 1
>> piece carbon and 1 piece aluminum whats everyones thoughts on the newer
>> aluminum booms.
>> Nathan
by Michae » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:39:10
Most everything I've read (and one conversation I've had with a
manufacturer) has it that boom making is quite challenging.
-Michael
www.peconicpuffin.com
> This would work great for someone like me who owns a lot of small sails, but
> only a couple of jumbos. I could live with carrying a boom for each of the
> big sails I own.
> Marketing might be a problem. Does not seem like a real profitable item,
> and shipping costs would be high unless the booms were shipped with the
> sail. But who knows?
> bs
> > 1-piece carbon is not terribly common. Most 1-piece carbon booms refer
> > to designs using carbon tube that is not attached to seperate boom arm
> > i.e., left and right arms and seperate front end tube. This does not
> > mean that the entire boom assembly (meaning the tubing from the back of
> > one arm to the back of the other) is just a single tube, however.
> > Several (perhaps most) carbon boom arms are actually three pieces: a
> > single curved tube that runs from about 1/2 way down the boom arm one
> > one side, around the mast (onto which is fitted the mast clamp) and
> > back down to about 1/2 way on the other side. The reason for this is
> > that a brand new mold is not necessary for every change in the length
> > of the boom body across the product range and as the lineup changes.
> > Moreover, it is a lot more expensive to manufacture a curved tube than
> > a straight one. The three pieces are epoxied in place, sanded smooth
> > and covered with grip material. Carbon booms break, but repairing them
> > is actually possible. Alu booms break, too, but repairing them is
> > almost impossible unless you replace a component.
> > It's comparatively economical to make a 1-piece alu boom, since molding
> > is not part of the process. Just roll flat sheet alu, tig weld, grind
> > smooth then bend on a mandrel. The lengh of the boom is not a large
> > variable item in the actual production, but the benefits of a single
> > piece (no joints to fail) and the fact that it can be swaged to create
> > thicker/thinner diameters allows tuning of the boom design to balance
> > strength/stiffness with user preferences.
> > In either event, realize that a stiff boom does wonders for sail
> > control, not only in terms of how directly we can get input to the rig
> > but maximizes all our tuning efforts. The larger the sail, the more
> > stiffness matters, both in terms of in-out flexing and rotational
> > flexing, and the choice of boom head means a great deal in controlling
> > the latter.
> > -Dan
> >> I saw there was an old posting from 2003 about this but I thought I
> >> restart it, with all the new updates that have come about with the 1
> >> piece carbon and 1 piece aluminum whats everyones thoughts on the newer
> >> aluminum booms.
> >> Nathan
by Michae » Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:40:58
That's some throw, sir.
:)
> I haven't looked at aluminium booms in a little while. The last time I
> used one, I accidentally bent both sides of the boom extension at the
> adjustment collar throwing the rig around for a duck jibe.
by Dan Weis » Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:59:52
I believe the additional challenge is the boom head itself. Even the
venerated Streamlined clamp has its own set of problems, including with
two of the basics: adjustment and slipping. Not to bash Streamlined,
they do a great job and are another example who, like Chinook, turn out
great product and reasonable prices.
The basic method for a plastic head uses a technology called RTM or
resin transfer method. RTM allows the introduction of fibers to
reinforce the plastic, but traditional RTM does not allow the
manufacturer to control the fiber orientation or concentration within a
single molded part. A very modern RTM allows fiber control, but such
is limited to epoxy-type work as I understand and is quite expensive.
In each case, a 2-pice stainless mold must be made using a CNC router,
and that is a fairly expensive up-front cost.
The same logic applies to the tail piece. One-piece alu tail pieces
have been around for over 25 years. Weichart made the first as far as
I know, and Mistral used their booms in the 1980s. The were very
stiff, and even the early Fiberspar prototypes incorporated the
Weichart alu tail piece because of the challenges associated with R&D
on a carbon tail piece. Beyond that, the tail hardware is a challenge,
both in terms of quality and price. We can all bolt on a Harken
miniblock and call it a day, but that is not acceptable for retail.
Thus, great effort and expense goes into designing and
sourcing/manufacturing the pulley/cleat system.
We are a cheap bunch, windsurfers. We want a $150 aluminum boom (since
many quivers require 3 or 4 booms) and complain when any part of it
functions like a Chevy Chevette. There was a guy in the Gorge who
started his own boom brand in the late 80's called Booms by/from Hale.
He did very nice work, offered std or custom booms and did all repairs,
including the *** regrip. In the best situation possible, with the
Gorge at its peak and consuming tons of alu booms each year, Hale went
away. I don't know the circumstances, but it's reasonable to speculate
that if anyone made a go of it, he did and would have stayed had it
been easier to achieve financial success. Again, I don't know the
details.
It seems that the only way to make any money by selling inexpensive
booms is for an existing entity to tackle the challenge. They have the
infrastructure and established market presence, but I would think that
that niche has already been filled by products from Chinook, Hawaiian
Pro-Line and Windsurfing Hawaii.
Anyway, if there is a better mousetrap, someone will figure out how to
make it and make money at the same time.
-Dan
by Caleb3.. » Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:42:27
As for the Streamlined head, again you are right Dan. It suffers from
usability issues as well as complicated & expensive mfg process. Most
boom heads on the market are actually injection molded of glass filled
Nylon plastics. Ours being a hybrid of very stiff proprietary long
fiber reinforced plastic, over-molded with a softer/tuffer nylon
plastic. As far as I know no one is using RTM molding to produce boom
heads. The RTM process is not well suited to complex cavity structural
parts. You can make beautiful cosmetic carbon fiber part but they have
large amounts of filler & low fiber ratio. Most complex structural
carbon fiber parts are actually machined from blocks of high fiber
density material. These parts suffer from other issues since the fiber
continuity is broken by machining. Both processes are expensive & would
most likely produce parts that are too stiff for the purposes of a boom
head. Again it is a difficult job balancing strength, stiffness,
function & cost - would love to hear your opinions!
As for tails, continuous is definitely the way to go here. The cleat
pulley systems all seem to work fairly well to me, I think the area
that needs the most attention on the tail is the adjustment system. I
am very interested in completely changing the whole system here.
Aluminum is unfortunately a fixture in the market since it is so much
cheaper to produce. Quality control becomes one of the most important
things here to keep material consistent in temper etc.. Still maybe
continuous alu is a good option? What do you think?
Caleb
> I believe the additional challenge is the boom head itself. Even the
> venerated Streamlined clamp has its own set of problems, including with
> two of the basics: adjustment and slipping. Not to bash Streamlined,
> they do a great job and are another example who, like Chinook, turn out
> great product and reasonable prices.
> The basic method for a plastic head uses a technology called RTM or
> resin transfer method. RTM allows the introduction of fibers to
> reinforce the plastic, but traditional RTM does not allow the
> manufacturer to control the fiber orientation or concentration within a
> single molded part. A very modern RTM allows fiber control, but such
> is limited to epoxy-type work as I understand and is quite expensive.
> In each case, a 2-pice stainless mold must be made using a CNC router,
> and that is a fairly expensive up-front cost.
> The same logic applies to the tail piece. One-piece alu tail pieces
> have been around for over 25 years. Weichart made the first as far as
> I know, and Mistral used their booms in the 1980s. The were very
> stiff, and even the early Fiberspar prototypes incorporated the
> Weichart alu tail piece because of the challenges associated with R&D
> on a carbon tail piece. Beyond that, the tail hardware is a challenge,
> both in terms of quality and price. We can all bolt on a Harken
> miniblock and call it a day, but that is not acceptable for retail.
> Thus, great effort and expense goes into designing and
> sourcing/manufacturing the pulley/cleat system.
> We are a cheap bunch, windsurfers. We want a $150 aluminum boom (since
> many quivers require 3 or 4 booms) and complain when any part of it
> functions like a Chevy Chevette. There was a guy in the Gorge who
> started his own boom brand in the late 80's called Booms by/from Hale.
> He did very nice work, offered std or custom booms and did all repairs,
> including the *** regrip. In the best situation possible, with the
> Gorge at its peak and consuming tons of alu booms each year, Hale went
> away. I don't know the circumstances, but it's reasonable to speculate
> that if anyone made a go of it, he did and would have stayed had it
> been easier to achieve financial success. Again, I don't know the
> details.
> It seems that the only way to make any money by selling inexpensive
> booms is for an existing entity to tackle the challenge. They have the
> infrastructure and established market presence, but I would think that
> that niche has already been filled by products from Chinook, Hawaiian
> Pro-Line and Windsurfing Hawaii.
> Anyway, if there is a better mousetrap, someone will figure out how to
> make it and make money at the same time.
> -Dan
by Caleb3.. » Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:00:04
Caleb
> Thanks for setting us straight on injection molded vs. RTM. My mind
> has been on RTM in another arena. Proof that Freud was right. There
> is a way to achieve a void free RTM product and control fiber
> orientation without machining the matrix. If you want to know more,
> contact me directly and I'll see if I can make a connection for you. No
> promises, but worth a try.
> As far as continuous alu is concerned, if you have the wherewithal to
> cover the different bend and swaging specs, and can get required
> lengths, then by all means use continuous as your new standard. The
> labor saved in joining the two arm sections (or is it 3 sections
> including the front piece?) and at least one less joint to worry about
> could make it a worthwhile venture. I suspect some people like the
> prospect of replacing a single arm in the event of damage, but I don't
> know too many people who live outside of windsurfing central
> willing/able to go that route outside of warranty. Perception means
> much, of course, as we have seen with a certain highly regarded sail
> brand who specs out masts by the 1/2 mast on the theory that sailors
> would rather replace a half a mast than the entire thing. I guess
> sailors would rather do that. The true benefit is found in the
> manufacturing QC, but that's off topic and not really applicable to
> booms.
> If your machining and bend tolerances are accurate and sufficient
> dimensionally, I think you probably could use very long extension arms
> with a twin-pin lock (like HPL/Maui Sails) and give exceptional range
> (and extra stiffness at shorter lengths) and achieve good torsional
> rigidity to help a plastic head do its thing. Avoiding a weight penalty
> might be a problem, of course. FWIW, Caleb, I'd look at the newer
> articulating clamps ala Maui Sails/Streamlined. My sense is that the
> triple clamp can be over tightened by the uninitiated.
> Certainly high mod carbon is already very expensive, and likely to stay
> that way for the foreseeable future. A top-dog alu boom might
> represent a nice compromise. In addition, the FE market will flock to
> the stiffest, long alu boom available. Maybe it could be yours! I hear
> great reports about the new dog on the carbon boom market. Diluting
> the hype, you might want to see what's out there before jumping deep
> into the super-tech carbon market.
> BTW, whatever happened to the Dynafiber radial weaving machine? I
> don't have any idea how you would ever remove the mandrel from a
> single-piece carbon boom, but someone with engineering talent could
> probably figure it out. They key might be to weave the tube, then bend
> on a mandrel, then partially cure, then straighten everything to remove
> the mandrel, then reform the hollow tube. I think using certain fibers
> with memory might make this possible, especially . It's certainly the
> case that many molded carbon boom arms are not exactly ready for the
> Space Shuttle. What about a lost-wax type method? If the weaving
> machine could make the turn, perhaps that makes for the most
> economical, but braiding is fraught with problems. Check out this
> link:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5394906.html As I said, NASA
> is all over this!
> -Dan
> > OK can't keep my mouth shut now ! .. BTW great comments Dan. Some of
> > you may have figured it out, but I am the new R&D guy at Chinook. The
> > last guy did a great job so I have allot of work to do! As for
> > continuous carbon arms, you are right Dan most companies are making
> > what amounts to a 3pc boom body, ours is 2pc but non continuous. We
> > have had our reasons for this approach I think I can safely say that we
> > could produce a great 1pc carbon boom body with our carbon uni pre-preg
> > process. What I am trying to figure out is, should we? There are many
> > obvious advantages to a 1pc continuous approach from an engineering
> > perspective. We do have a big advantage in that our production & R&D
> > are in house for all of our carbon boom parts. I am at a crossroads
> > right now with this idea since we are currently tweaking the current
> > triple clamp head to address some issues but looking down the road at
> > different approaches for the next generation. Maybe this is just the
> > place to gather some feedback & opinions?
> > As for the Streamlined head, again you are right Dan. It suffers from
> > usability issues as well as complicated & expensive mfg process. Most
> > boom heads on the market are actually injection molded of glass filled
> > Nylon plastics. Ours being a hybrid of very stiff proprietary long
> > fiber reinforced plastic, over-molded with a softer/tuffer nylon
> > plastic. As far as I know no one is using RTM molding to produce boom
> > heads. The RTM process is not well suited to complex cavity structural
> > parts. You can make beautiful cosmetic carbon fiber part but they have
> > large amounts of filler & low fiber ratio. Most complex structural
> > carbon fiber parts are actually machined from blocks of high fiber
> > density material. These parts suffer from other issues since the fiber
> > continuity is broken by machining. Both processes are expensive & would
> > most likely produce parts that are too stiff for the purposes of a boom
> > head. Again it is a difficult job balancing strength, stiffness,
> > function & cost - would love to hear your opinions!
> > As for tails, continuous is definitely the way to go here. The cleat
> > pulley systems all seem to work fairly well to me, I think the area
> > that needs the most attention on the tail is the adjustment system. I
> > am very interested in completely changing the whole system here.
> > Aluminum is unfortunately a fixture in the market since it is so much
> > cheaper to produce. Quality control becomes one of the most important
> > things here to keep material consistent in temper etc.. Still maybe
> > continuous alu is a good option? What do you think?
> > Caleb
> > > Brian and Michael: I agree with both of you about the relative ease in
> > > manufacturing aluminum booms. It's not as easy as boiling water, but
> > > not nearly as tough as creating an all-carbon boom. The challenge is,
> > > as always, sourcing material and finding reliable and skilled labor.
> > > Chinook does well because they understand the challenges and work hard
> > > on R&D. Others have failed or abandoned their efforts despite very
> > > nice product.
> > > I believe the additional challenge is the boom head itself. Even the
> > > venerated Streamlined clamp has its own set of problems, including with
> > > two of the basics: adjustment and slipping. Not to bash Streamlined,
> > > they do a great job and are another example who, like Chinook, turn out
> > > great product and reasonable prices.
> > > The basic method for a plastic head uses a technology called RTM or
> > > resin transfer method. RTM allows the
read more »
by Dan Weis » Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:23:54
The tech stuff never ceases to amaze me. It's what drew me off the
playing field and into the back office, back in the day.
As for other comparisons to the triple clamp, I really like the
Fiberspar front end. It is easy to get on the mast if done properly
(snap down, not up) and can be totally cranked for rock solid
connection. The *** bumper is pretty thick and I suspect it
compresses just enough to prevent point loading as the lever runs
through its cam phase.
I understand the problem with fiber control using a braid -especially
on the concave surface. A braid also is a compromise orientation wrt
stiffness in the common sense of the term. I assume, then, that your
carbon boom is wound?
You might know that NoLimitz began using what I understood to be scraps
of Boing Aero prepreg. Their early masts were the lightest thing to a
saltine and pretty tough, but quick suspect in terms of bend
consistency. That's what you get when assembling each mast by hand
using an old steam iron....
If a great front end could be found, and somebody had a line ontop-dog
mil spec pre preg, I'd think that would prove a lethal combination in
the largest sizes. Increased labor, but not at the highest cost.
BTW, Caleb, since I have your ear (and probably lost everyone else's by
now) you would be well served to review the mold for the quick hingeed
collar. It is notorious for shredding luff sleeves -especially when
extended. As well, I think the Chinook power haul cleat system adds
about 1.5 cm to the stated rigged luff lengths using the common
reference of the bottom of the extension's pulley wheels. This has
caused some confusion in the past when people tune larger sails. Oh
yeah, send me a new Chinook coffee mug!
-Dan
> Caleb
> > Hi Caleb: I haven't used Chinooks in a while now (except rigging a
> > triple clamp in the process of tuning another's gear), but suspect you
> > guys offer at least one "price point" branded model. What I didn't
> > mention is that additional money can be made being an OEM supplier to
> > the sail companies without jeopardizing the brand if something goes
> > awry. This could be the "in" for a startup with solid industry
> > connections. Look out Chinook ;-)
> > Thanks for setting us straight on injection molded vs. RTM. My mind
> > has been on RTM in another arena. Proof that Freud was right. There
> > is a way to achieve a void free RTM product and control fiber
> > orientation without machining the matrix. If you want to know more,
> > contact me directly and I'll see if I can make a connection for you. No
> > promises, but worth a try.
> > As far as continuous alu is concerned, if you have the wherewithal to
> > cover the different bend and swaging specs, and can get required
> > lengths, then by all means use continuous as your new standard. The
> > labor saved in joining the two arm sections (or is it 3 sections
> > including the front piece?) and at least one less joint to worry about
> > could make it a worthwhile venture. I suspect some people like the
> > prospect of replacing a single arm in the event of damage, but I don't
> > know too many people who live outside of windsurfing central
> > willing/able to go that route outside of warranty. Perception means
> > much, of course, as we have seen with a certain highly regarded sail
> > brand who specs out masts by the 1/2 mast on the theory that sailors
> > would rather replace a half a mast than the entire thing. I guess
> > sailors would rather do that. The true benefit is found in the
> > manufacturing QC, but that's off topic and not really applicable to
> > booms.
> > If your machining and bend tolerances are accurate and sufficient
> > dimensionally, I think you probably could use very long extension arms
> > with a twin-pin lock (like HPL/Maui Sails) and give exceptional range
> > (and extra stiffness at shorter lengths) and achieve good torsional
> > rigidity to help a plastic head do its thing. Avoiding a weight penalty
> > might be a problem, of course. FWIW, Caleb, I'd look at the newer
> > articulating clamps ala Maui Sails/Streamlined. My sense is that the
> > triple clamp can be over tightened by the uninitiated.
> > Certainly high mod carbon is already very expensive, and likely to stay
> > that way for the foreseeable future. A top-dog alu boom might
> > represent a nice compromise. In addition, the FE market will flock to
> > the stiffest, long alu boom available. Maybe it could be yours! I hear
> > great reports about the new dog on the carbon boom market. Diluting
> > the hype, you might want to see what's out there before jumping deep
> > into the super-tech carbon market.
> > BTW, whatever happened to the Dynafiber radial weaving machine? I
> > don't have any idea how you would ever remove the mandrel from a
> > single-piece carbon boom, but someone with engineering talent could
> > probably figure it out. They key might be to weave the tube, then bend
> > on a mandrel, then partially cure, then straighten everything to remove
> > the mandrel, then reform the hollow tube. I think using certain fibers
> > with memory might make this possible, especially . It's certainly the
> > case that many molded carbon boom arms are not exactly ready for the
> > Space Shuttle. What about a lost-wax type method? If the weaving
> > machine could make the turn, perhaps that makes for the most
> > economical, but braiding is fraught with problems. Check out this
> > link:http://SportToday.org/, NASA
> > is all over this!
> > -Dan
> > > OK can't keep my mouth shut now ! .. BTW great comments Dan. Some of
> > > you may have figured it out, but I am the new R&D guy at Chinook. The
> > > last guy did a great job so I have allot of work to do! As for
> > > continuous carbon arms, you are right Dan most companies are making
> > > what amounts to a 3pc boom body, ours is 2pc but non continuous. We
> > > have had our reasons for this approach I think I can safely say that we
> > > could produce a great 1pc carbon boom body with our carbon uni pre-preg
> > > process. What I am trying to figure out is, should we? There are many
> > > obvious advantages to a 1pc continuous approach from an engineering
> > > perspective. We do have a big advantage in that our production & R&D
> > > are in house for all of our carbon boom parts. I am at a crossroads
> > > right now with this idea since we are currently tweaking the current
> > > triple clamp head to address some issues but looking down the road at
> > > different approaches for the next generation. Maybe this is just the
> > > place to gather some feedback & opinions?
> > > As for the Streamlined head, again you are right Dan. It suffers from
> > > usability issues as well as complicated & expensive mfg process. Most
> > > boom heads on the market are actually injection molded of glass filled
> > > Nylon plastics. Ours being a hybrid of very stiff proprietary long
> > > fiber reinforced plastic, over-molded with a softer/tuffer nylon
> > > plastic. As far as I know no one is using RTM molding to produce boom
> > > heads. The RTM process is not well suited to complex cavity structural
> > > parts. You can make beautiful cosmetic carbon fiber part but they have
> > > large amounts of filler & low fiber ratio. Most
read more »
by Roy Tansil » Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:00:13
1. Vulcan hands, boom to boom or boom mast boom?
2. NP/fiberspar all carbon boom tail piece problems
3. Chinook Carbon Boom vs. Fiberspar
8. Was NP VS WH Boom Now Old vs New Sail Design
10. How do you mark aluminum booms?
11. WTB: Used Chinook Aluminum Boom (Max. 200cm)
12. Found - Chinook aluminum boom
13. boom recomendation (was stuck boom)