> I keep seeing occasional threads pertaining to good data vs. bad data in
> regards to structrual integrity. I am sure this question has been asked
> before but what would be considered good data? If one of the major
> suppliers of the products we use does tests on its products, what makes
> the data bad or irrelevant? If the tests were done on X number of panels,
> all the same size with the results showing an obvious pattern. How can
> this pattern of results not be applicable to the type(s) of boat building
> discussed here or for that matter any wood core composite boat?

> Too many questions, not enough tequila to answer them.

I think most of our discussions of the testing of panels revolved most on how to set up the test so that 'real world' kayaking conditions are simulated. Given all the variables from the type/thickness of wood core to type/thickness of fiberglass lay-up to test apparatus set-up, getting 'Bad' data is easy. I think the consensus is that no one has yet done a really 'Good' study, but the data referred to in Nick's book will give you a 'Good' idea of how wood thickness and 'glass/epoxy lay-ups affect stiffness and overall strength.

Have a couple shots of tequila and build your boat. The more tequila you have, the less you'll care whether you have 'Good' data or 'Bad' data...;-)

Dean