Quicksilver

Post Reply
quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Quicksilver

Post by quicksilver-wsr »

Steve, Bill - I think I've said on here before that Ken was very heavily influenced by Cobb's accident. The data Ken derived from his analysis of the break-up of Crusader became the foundation for his structural design spec. for K7.

This led to K7 being over-engineered, definitely.

It also, many years subsequently, led to Ken's structural design requirements for Quicksilver being way over-the-top, to the point where sensible people I'd brought in to help interpret Ken's spec. reacted with a mixture of shock and incredulity when some of what was being proposed was put to them ...

We had a design concept the structure of which was all-but impossible to implement in practice ... hence we couldn't get it built ... hence a plethora of other difficulties subsequently arising from this fact.

Poor old Ken was over-engineering out of fear, basically.

Nigel

f1steveuk
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Belves France

Re: Quicksilver

Post by f1steveuk »

Sorry, been off line (changing laptops).

I'm pretty certain that Reid would have been "coaching" Ken, because there had been a LOT of discussion during the building of Crusader, where Railton himself, was questioned about his calc's on loads that the front shoe might encounter. Indeed, Peter du Cane thought RAR's calc's were well over the top, as were the spec's he put forward for it's construction. It would appear that maybe, had they taken Reid's approach,the shoe might not have failed. I can see Reid telling Ken this, and I can see Ken taking it fully onboard!
Steve Holter, UK and France, and sometimes reality....................

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Quicksilver

Post by quicksilver-wsr »

f1steveuk wrote:I'm pretty certain that Reid would have been "coaching" Ken ...
I'm sure that's right, Steve. Ken certainly took guidance from Railton - including when he was designing the CN7 car.

I was looking through the original K7 stressing calcs the other night, also some of the calcs done for when the boat was to be modified in 1966, by which stage there were concerns about the spaceframe's strength, due to corrosion. Stepping around the figures for the winter 66/67 runs, 10 g was the highest loading seen by K7 on a run. This was obviously way less than Ken had originally designed for (28 g), which indicates the structural safety margin they actually had.

The original aim was for K7 to be able to hit a sequence of waves in the same way Cobb did, and experience the same forces, yet not break up as Crusader did.

Nigel

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: Quicksilver

Post by Renegadenemo »

I was looking through the original K7 stressing calcs the other night, also some of the calcs done for when the boat was to be modified in 1966, by which stage there were concerns about the spaceframe's strength, due to corrosion
Safe to say they had nothing to worry about. The 66 NDT test suggests corrosion on the lower faces of the lower tubes but they could only guess - we cut them open and had a look.. Even after 34 years on the bottom of the lake the tubes were fine. This must be partly due to the fact that many of them had traces of oil inside. The bilges must have been swimming with lube, hyd fluid, kerosene, you name it...
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Quicksilver

Post by quicksilver-wsr »

Yes, that's it - just as water had got into the tubes over the years since the boat was first launched, so too had other fluids that might protect it. Plus, I'd be very surprised indeed if there wasn't some sort of oil on the inside of the tubes right from the day Accles & Pollock drew them, forming a protective layer.

I say that because our tubing came out of the same plant - in fact, there is a 50% chance that it came off the very same machine (Accles & Pollock had two machines of the type that could produce this kind of tubing) - and it was coated on the inside surfaces with a layer of oil.

It's still there in the tubes, in fact - that's how good it is. The only places the oil coating is absent is on the ends of the tubes - where, obviously, it had to be cleaned off thoroughly prior to welding - and also, one presumes, in various places where it would have been fried into crispy ineffectiveness by the intense heat of welding applied to the corresponding outside surfaces.

Back to K7 - ironically, one of the concerns in 1966 was that fluids put into the tubes in more recent times to protect them from the feared corrosion might not have been entirely purged, potentially causing the very problem these fluids were intended to solve! I don't have the name to hand of the stuff they used, but apparently, left to lie in the tubes, it would actually corrode them.

I don't know if they ever bottomed this in '66, but it was certainly something that was taken seriously enough to warrant further investigation.

Anyway, that was all to the credit of the Bluebird/Norris Brothers team. They obviously were considering the structural integrity of the boat very carefully, in view of its advanced age, and the increased loadings the higher speeds would impose on the craft.

Nigel

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Quicksilver

Post by quicksilver-wsr »

Anniversary alert! - 36 years ago today the current World Water Speed Record was set.

Nigel

User avatar
mtskull
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Quicksilver

Post by mtskull »

quicksilver-wsr wrote:Anniversary alert! - 36 years ago today the current World Water Speed Record was set.

Nigel
Hurry up then! ;)
Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals.

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Quicksilver

Post by quicksilver-wsr »

:D Am trying my damndest!

Check out my worry-lines, greying hair and house falling to pieces for want of TLC!

N.

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: Quicksilver

Post by quicksilver-wsr »

With this year rapidly screeching to its conclusion, a quick update on progress with Quicksilver ...

We are concentrating on the pattern-making chore which must precede manufacture of the outer hull "shell". When this Kevlar-clad shell is built, Quicksilver will begin to look more traditionally boat-like, with its vee-shaped underside and the chine and main step.

The area in question is shown in this CAD image in blues and greens:
70-mph-water-probe_Blurred low res version.jpg
Other than this outer-skin work, we did engine-running tests at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground the past two weekends (one run being at maximum thrust). We'll be testing our own "home-built" engine-driven electrical power generation system at max RPM, too, very soon - again at Bruntingthorpe.

No question, this has been a frustrating year for the project, with progress slow, but we are are still edging forward.

Like everybody else over the past few years, I have seen predictions of three-way, four-way and five-way battles for the WWSR, but I don't think that was ever remotely feasible. There is more likely to be one boat, maybe two, at different times.

Nigel
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

malcolm uk
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:53 pm
Location: Derby, England

Re: Quicksilver

Post by malcolm uk »

Nigel,

The Economist has put out a You Tube piece placing Quicksilver at the forefront of the water speed record contenders in 2015. What is the information regarding a bid - will it be on Coniston Water?

Malcolm
Malcolm Pittwood
The Bluebird Project
Operations

Post Reply