Penetrable Area

Discussion in 'General' started by Bob Pottle, Nov 28, 2015.

  1. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,001
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Ralph and I are marking his Seydlitz hull's penetrable area and have run into some situations not clearly covered by the IRCWCC construction rules.

    1) The space between the 3/8" weather deck stringer and the 1/8" casemate stringer is 1/8" high, not high enough for BBs to pass through. Should those slots be widened to allow BBs through?

    2) The Seydlitz hull has an 8" long armor belt that runs 7.5" forward of the stern impenetrable area. There's a slight ledge to represent the belt and it's 3/8" down the side of the hull. That means the weather deck stringer and armor stringer will be in contact, giving a total continuous thickness of 1/2".

    What should be done about this? The total vertical stringer area of 1/2" is allowed but a single stringer shouldn't be that wide. Should the armor stringer be moved far enough below scale position for a BB to pass between it and the deck stringer (as per question 1)? That will require filing the hull to move the stringer's step further down the side.

    If the answer to question one is 'yes' the weather deck stringer could be made narrower so a BB can pass between it and the armor stringer where it is now, but that'll remove nearly half the legal deck stringer's height.
     
  2. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,001
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Any rules experts out there??
     
  3. absolutek

    absolutek -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I believe there was some similar discussion on tugboats Malaya build thread about a situation where the stringers were to close to allow a bb to pass. I don't believe there is a requirement to allow enough space to allow a bb to pass through. You could just run the dremel blade along the line between the deck and stringer in between where the ribs are. If it's the way it was designed, that is how I'd do it.
     
  4. Maxspin

    Maxspin -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Posts:
    634
    Location:
    Yelm, Washington
    I am of the opinion that a BB should be able to pass. I do not believe the rules are clear enough to force the issue.
    Keith
     
  5. absolutek

    absolutek -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    It's not that the rules aren't clear, there simply isn't a requirement for maintaining a bb sized space between stringer(s) and/or deck assembly. Of course you can get some people who will complain about any advantage gleaned from following the rules or lack thereof.
     
    Tugboat likes this.
  6. Tim

    Tim Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    10
    Location:
    Burleson, Texas
    I wrote the current hard area rules. As written, It did not require that a bb can pass between any given deck or stringer. My recommendation, build it scale and let things fall where they may. I know that others have told me of a situation where Baden can have two stringers right next to each other because of a casemate deck and an armor belt next to each other, and that is legal. Just make sure both are defined.

    I will reiterate that stringers define things that visibly need a stringer. I. E. If you use an armor belt stringer, don't sheet over it and hide it, as CD I would want the belt clearly defined (scale) if used. I only say this because I have seen some boats that sheet over or cover them up for ease of sheeting, but that can remove the legality of having one. :)

    Hope that helps!

    Tim Beckett
     
  7. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,001
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Thanks for the replies. Tim, as you wrote the the rule I'll go by what you've said. In the past NABS members usually made a space between stringers wide enough for a BB to pass (it seemed to make sense), but I don't recall if that was written in the IRCWCC rule set.

    The aft armor belts on the Seydlitz hull are clearly defined and are 3/8" down from the deck. Now that you've confirmed it's legal there will be a 1/2" combined stringer there. I don't see that as giving any advantage in competition versus two separate stringers. Unfortunately Ralph didn't make a defined armor belt forward on Seydlitz, where it should run from the casemate embrasures all the way to the bow. I'll add the stringers but he'll have to put an extra strip of balsa on them to make them visible when sheeting.
     
  8. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,576
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I just ran across this.... based on the IRC Rules.. there is no requirement to make the armor belt visible. The only condition for use it lists that the shape of the hull dictates its use. It makes no mention of sheeting techniques or its visibility after sheeting. Was that part of the MWC rules or your own interpretation?

    I still sheet my ship to show the armor belt but not for compliance but rather the 'look' of the ship. If I am in an hurry I will sheet right over it as I am legally allowed to, per the rule below.

    I reiterate that there is NO mention of visibility regarding stringers in the rules. I just want to make sure folks are not under the wrong impression about stringers at this time.



    Rule below for reference:

    11. A stringer shall be defined as any solid material that hull skin is attached to that forms the shape of the hull and is not classed as a rib.


    a. No stringers shall be used unless the shape of the hull dictates. Hull features that dictate the use of a stringer are: bulges, casement decks, casemate guns, knuckles, or armor belts. The stringer may not extend more than one rib beyond where that hull feature is prominent.


    b. The surface of the stringer which is against the penetrable area of the hull skin shall be no thicker than 1/8" material but may be any width.


    c. The total vertical hard area cannot exceed ½” between any two ribs in the penetrable area of the hull e.g., a ship with both a casemate deck and a defined armor bulge or belt may use two stringers provided that the weather deck is no more than ¼” so that the combined vertical hard area between the ribs is no more than ½”.


    d. Appendix A shall contain examples of classes and their maximum deck and stringer hard area. In cases where there are questions, the drawing shall be final.
     
  9. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,404
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    If the stringer isn't visible then it follows that the hull feature did not dictate the use of it.
     
  10. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,576
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    That is the whole issue though.. in the rules visibility is not required. The shape of the hull dictates its usage and legality, If I sheet over the stringer it does not make it illegal. Which in itself is the issue with 'enforcement' by a CD.

    Common sense for the hobby would suggest that stringers should leave room for a bb to pass .. the object of the hobby is to damage ships to sink. If the placement of a stringer next to another ship feature like another stringer or deck prevents the passing of a bb through penetrable area.. then it should be wrong and therefore illegal.. but its not, the rules don't dictate spacing or that a bb should pass.. which is common sense. In addition this practice with stringers allows ships to have more impenetrable or should I say 'impassable' area than allowed... and they are worried about a cupola.. its a double-standard.

    Same goes for the stringer.. it would be logical for it to be visible.. but the rule does not require it to be visible to be legal.
     
  11. irnuke

    irnuke -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,079
    Location:
    York, SC
    Johnny, I think you're trolling. "Shape of the hull dictates" means that there is some feature of the hull other than a smooth, flat surface. If you can "sheet over it", it's a smooth, flat surface. I'd venture to say (and I know this years NATS CD (McSpuds) feels the same) that if you have a stringer, there should be some sort of step, bend, or knuckle in your sheeting to demonstrate it. Otherwise, you wouldn't need a stringer there, would you?
     
    Tugboat likes this.
  12. daisycutter

    daisycutter Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    130
    To me if you stack stringer/deck rim close enough to each other that a bb will not penetrate, for our purposes is that not impenetrable. Please explain how it is not?
    BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  13. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,576
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I am not trolling.... Advice was given contrary to the written rule and I felt a correction was needed.

    No matter how a person stretches their perspective.. or how strongly they feel.. it does not change the fact that he rule does not require visible evidence in the sheeting of hull features. If it was that important it would have been worded as such... I believe the intent, while not worded properly, was to prevent Captains with ships that did not have such features as part of the hull from adding a stringer randomly. If a ship is known to have an armor belt and the stringer is modeled... WHO CARES if they sheet over it.. its part of the ship... case closed.

    You are reaching by saying that the 'hull shape dictates' to mean that it must be demonstrated in the sheeting. I am not saying it makes 100% sense.. I am saying that that rule does not require features to be visible in the sheeting.. only to shape the hull. Does balsa always adhere to ALL parts of the hull.. the bow? casements?.. does this failure to maintain the ships hull shape (when balsa does not adhere) therefore make such affected ships illegal?

    The point overall was that it is not in the rules and it was represented as 'if you do this then you are wrong and will get in trouble' which is not correct.. by the rule.

    Thats all I had to say.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
  14. Ironbeard

    Ironbeard Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Posts:
    153
    Location:
    SoCal up in the San Bernardino mountains
    I think "intent" has a lot to do with acceptability of a ships build. My first capital ship build was the HMS Repulse in the Big Gun format and the version with the added Torpedo Bulge configuration. (Example below)
    300px-Anti-torpedo_bulge.svg.png
    There is no way to create such dramatic hull shapes without stringers at key locations to support the hull sheeting and ribs. I built mine using the minimal thickness of material. If I remember correctly my stringers were 1/8" think and did the job nicely. Now if someone were to use 1/4" or 3/8ths ply stringers I would consider that likely taking advantage of the intent of the rules. My 1/8" stringers very very rarely stopped anything unless the BB hit the stringer exactly square. Rather the BB would usually ricochet up or down and punch through the hull sheeting. I even had a 1/4" ball bearing crack a stringer once.

    Unless you want to spend all your time constantly writing and rewriting the rules you can't possibly cover every conceivable way someone can attempt to circumvent the rules....and who would want to. That started to become a problem with my first club (SCBG). We had a problem with several newbies coming into the club back then, that just seemed hell bent and focused on finding a way to get around the rules rather than following the INTENT of the rules in order to win at any cost. The INTENT of this hobby...IS TO HAVE FUN!! Cheating is not fun. If you have to cheat to win, that's not winning. And if you have to cheat to win then you need to find another hobby.....like maybe politics or something.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
  15. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,404
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    Advice was given that was contrary to how you read the rule. Not necessarily to the rule.

    IMO: If you can't see it, it isn't modeled.

    You are looking at what the rules do not specify, and you are right, they do not specify a feature must be visible. HOWEVER, they do specify that the shape of the hull must dictate the use of the stringer. If you can sheet over it in a single piece of balsa then the stringer is not dictated.

    It is my opinion having read the rules very carefully that if your hull, as sheeted, does not possess the armor belt that dictates the stringer, then it does not dictate the stringer's existence and you cannot have one.
     
  16. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,318
    I've always thought that the "hull shape dictates" means you have to be able to touch it or feel it. On my Kongo you can see the armor belt unsheeeted. I sheet over it, don't cut the balsa at that line. When sheeted you can still see and feel it. I do this to all my ships with bulges and belts. You don't need to cut the balsa at each location if it's soft enough to bend around it.
    On a Derfliger (I'm guessing Seydlitz is the same) there was a visible armor belt on the ship, you can see it in photos. But the Strike Models hull does not come with a bump in that location. I've been told it scales to 1/12" bump. If you want to put in a stringer I think you can, just glue something to the hull to make a bump and sheet over it. Should still be able to feel the bump.

    It's not that hard. Doesn't need to be a huge issue.
     
  17. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,576
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    The rule does not require visible.. you said it yourself. If you want to force yourself to follow your interpretation of the rule that is up to you. I think it is wrong to tell others that they must ignore the letter of the law and follow a singular opinion of the rule in order to be legal, which is why I spoke on this subject.

    If I have time., I will sheet it in such a way to create the armor belt because I like the way it looks, but if I am in a hurry.. it will be one sheet on the side.

    The intent of the rule was not to 'take away stringers' because they didn't sheet the boat correctly. The intent of the rule was to stop ships from adding stringers to the hull where no feature ever existed on the ship. As I said before if the ship is well known to have an armor belt or hull feature.. then they get a stringer.. we all know that... Are we really going to have a war pond side about a Bismarck with an armor belt that isn't visible?.. I think the armor belt of the Bismark is one of the most famous and prominent armor belts of any ship in history. Would we then say.. we all know the Bismark had an armor belt.. but since you didn't sheet it a certain way you need to cut it out... I just don't think anyone would say that. HOWEVER if the rule said it should be visible or modeled in the sheeting.. it would be a different story.. but not worth getting worked up over.

    As far as sheeting .. if I sheet over my armor belt you can still see a bump.. you can still feel a bump... in the past that was not enough.. I wonder why?
     
  18. thegeek

    thegeek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,164
    Location:
    Mongo
    Like Bob said: I do it the same way, been CD more than a couple of years (about 8). The knuckle or step has to exist but you don't have cut the balsa to make it in relief.
     
  19. jadfer

    jadfer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,576
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Case closed.
     
  20. NickMyers

    NickMyers Admin RCWC Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,404
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    And what if the underlying hull does not actually possess the knuckle or step. Do you need to then create it in the balsa at the appropriate location to be legal?