Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paper Patterns vs Flexible Shape Patterns

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    First this isn't a knock against anyone here but I've followed this thread and the thread at AllMetalShaping and what I don't understand is this. Peter is a Pro. He was taught this craft by other Pro's in the traditional English/Euro method which has produced some of the most beautiful and desired cars in the world. If he says they (FSP's) are crap that is good enough for me.

    How many of the guys disagreeing with him have done even a tenth of the work that he has produced over his career? Why are people with just a fraction of his experience arguing about how useful and effective the FSP is? Same thing with David Gardiner when he was active at AMS. Guys who couldn't hold his jock would argue with him about methods until he finally quit posting. So the forum lost a valuable resource and suffered because people can't swallow their pride. Now look at how dead that forum is,it is becoming just like MetalMeet.

    The way I look at it is free your mind, let go of your bad habits and learn from a Professional metalshaper, a guy that made his living producing panels not just teaching classes. Sorry if that offends anyone.

    Comment


    • #17
      I do understand that Peter is not a fan of the FSP but I've never seen an explanation as to what's wrong with the method. Is it that it wastes time? Produces poor quality results? Too limited in application?

      I am a total beginner here but I think I understand the theory of how FSPs are supposed to work and I have successfully made a few simple panels using the method. If there's something fundamentally flawed with FSPs it would be good to know about it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by joeswamp View Post
        I do understand that Peter is not a fan of the FSP but I've never seen an explanation as to what's wrong with the method. Is it that it wastes time? Produces poor quality results? Too limited in application?

        I am a total beginner here but I think I understand the theory of how FSPs are supposed to work and I have successfully made a few simple panels using the method. If there's something fundamentally flawed with FSPs it would be good to know about it.
        NeilB's post's here and over at AllMetalShaping highlight the shortcomings. Maybe Peter can weigh in on exactly why he dislikes them.

        Comment


        • #19
          I dont like the concept of the FSP because it's a method that is inaccurate. all the way through from begining to end is contradictory.

          an FSP when taken and laid out on your sheet of metal can you cut the correct size blank? no cause it still has shape, you could cut slits in it but then you dont have an FSP anymore.

          taking a paper pattern, creating folds holding them with tape you get a paper part with shape. remove the tape place on your sheet now you can cut your blank the correct size. you can always put your folds back in and hold with tape.

          wray makes an FSP and says when the part fits, its correct. then why make profiles of the shape?

          apparently he still uses paper patterns, then why bother with this crap?

          I honestly dont know who he was trying to convince, me? or himself!


          just so everyone is aware david gardner along with Peter stopped posting for a reason, and that was the admin on the other forum. we started this forum so people have the chance to learn the correct way. Peter's methods along with David Gardiner, Geoff Moss, and lots of others have been around for a hundred years. tried, tested, works. feel free to practice your FSP methods that's fine, post pictures of your work that's why this forum and others exist, if you have a problem please ask and listen. I know Peter has made a part for someone that has had trouble making, just so he can help explain, (I have done the same) only to be shot down. (I wasn't shot down, couldn't be bothered to post after reading other answers)

          I'm sure there is more but its early morning lol
          thanks neil

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by joeswamp View Post
            I am a total beginner here but I think I understand the theory of how FSPs are supposed to work and I have successfully made a few simple panels using the method. If there's something fundamentally flawed with FSPs it would be good to know about it.
            Joe, I have made full 1/4 panels for my porsche without a paper pattern, peter and I made the door skins without a paper pattern, doesn't mean paper patterns are useless.

            by all means keep using the FSP, if you get stuck with something ask, that's why this forum and others are around. understand that paper behaves like steel. that's why it is used
            thanks neil

            Comment


            • #21
              • Chris the FSP patterns is simply a waste of time and money and here some of the reasons why..................

                N1 it does not give you the data necessary to make a panel (see dvd's N1 and 2 called how to make and read patterns on this forum ) none of the data shown on the paper pat is shown on the FSP.

                N2 WHY on Earth would one want to look at the shape on the FSP when you can look and gauge the shape on the panel where the FSP has been made from ??

                N3 On a summer day the FSP would give you a different data than on a cold day and possibly lose it's shape

                N4 How come in our friend (which name will not be mention) fit's the FSP on the original panel and yet it's also fits the panel that he has made when the panel in question look like a horse shoes ? In another words the FSP patt could fit almost anything that is close to the shape and give you the wrong reading

                N 5 all the work and data lines that our friend has made on the FSP will be useless .simply because when the metal is stretched those line will change position at each stage of the stretch.

                N6 when the FSP is made ..it can not be spread out to give you the right amount of material needed to cut the blank and you can not mark accurately any info simply because it's already a shrunk piece of plastic

                There are others too many reason why I do not use the FSP too many to mention but these above are the main ones

                In another words..simply watch the dvd's that I have posted and see for your self, then make your own mind which method is more simpler and accurate

                Just as a example simply watch Geoff Moss Jaguar bonnets on the wall of his shop filmed by William Longyard and tell me if you think that Geff has use the FSP patt..... or indeed made those panels the same way that our friend did!

                Cheers
                Peter T.

                PS one more thing...... why is it that our friend shrunk the front of that panel when in reality it should have been stretched? Is it because the FSP told him so ?

                PLEASE I do not want to make an argument or a war about this, or criticize our friend or the way of his teaching and working . Simply state that the FSP patt system..... it's an invented theory and has been drum in to beginners minds that it works... NOT a traditional way used for nearly 70 Years to build car bodies
              Last edited by Peter Tommasini; 31-08-19, 09:49 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                PS one thing that I would like to say adding to the previews post of mine about FSP versus normal paper patt. Some people will disagreed with what I am saying and perhaps say that I am wrong ........WELL........
                Perhaps then my teachers all those Years ago where also wrong too, and so where all the workers in the Aston Martin, Rolls Royce , and Scaglietti Ferrari factories Back then.
                Last edited by Peter Tommasini; 31-08-19, 05:51 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by joeswamp View Post
                  I don't think the FSP method is always superior, but to me it seems useful when:[LIST][*]You have a shape you you want to copy (like an existing panel) but don't have a buck
                  ...
                  David Gardiner made a beautiful pair of wings for a Frazer-Nash car, by using the rusty originals as a buck.

                  Photos of them should still be on AMS and I think he has them on his website.

                  A paper pattern and tuition from Peter, seems far easier than making an FSP, to me,

                  Cheers Charlie

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    For new chums who may not know of David, here is a link to the wings. Surfing his site is a joy!

                    I highly recommend his DVD as well as buying Peter's.

                    https://www.classicmetalshaping.co.uk/image-gallery/

                    Cheers Charlie

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Thanks guys for explaining, it is helpful. One point you both make seems to be more of a question:

                      wray makes an FSP and says when the part fits, its correct. then why make profiles of the shape?
                      N4 How come in our friend (which name will not be mention) fit's the FSP on the original panel and yet it's also fits the panel that he has made when the panel in question look like a horse shoes ? In another words the FSP patt could fit almost anything that is close to the shape and give you the wrong reading
                      The answer to this question is actually the whole point of the FSP -- it allows you to work on local area changes independent of bending arrangement.

                      Let's say I have a big stamping die and I'm going to make a simple bowl shape. I start with a round flat steel blank. Before I put the blank in the press, I mark the blank with a grid of squares. Each square has an area of one square inch.

                      When I take the bowl out of the press, I measure each square and discover that almost none of them have the same area as before. The squares in the bottom of the bowl have been stretched and the areas of these squares are greater than one. The squares on the sides of the bowl have been shrunk and the areas of these squares are less than one. This "local area change" is unique to that bowl; you cannot make that bowl shape without those exact same changes to the individual areas.

                      However, the bowl shape is not the only panel I can make with this area change. I can push the sides of the bowl together with my hands and make an oval shaped bowl instead of round. I can make skinny ovals or wide ovals, all sorts of different ovals. These shapes are "bending arrangements" of the area change, and there are technically an infinite number of them, but each of them still requires the same local area change as the bowl -- all those little squares on the oval bowl have the same areas as when they came out of the press and the bowl was round.

                      The FSP captures only the local area change of the panel. When the FSP fits, you have achieved the unique local area change required for the panel to fit, but the panel must still be bent to the final "bending arrangement". The key here is that it can be bent to shape, because if the local area changes aren't right, it can't be bent to shape. You can't bend a flat sheet into a bowl, for example -- you need to shrink and stretch.

                      You need the profiles for the bending part. You always need to bend the part to fit after the FSP fits.

                      One of the problems with the FSP method (in my opinion) is that sometimes you need to be creative with bending, especially if your part is wildly out of arrangement when you're done wheeling and the part has a lot of curvature. I've read of some folks making parts inside out and being unable to flip them the right way round.

                      Another point you both make is a valid criticism:

                      an FSP when taken and laid out on your sheet of metal can you cut the correct size blank? no cause it still has shape, you could cut slits in it but then you dont have an FSP anymore.

                      taking a paper pattern, creating folds holding them with tape you get a paper part with shape. remove the tape place on your sheet now you can cut your blank the correct size. you can always put your folds back in and hold with tape.
                      N6 when the FSP is made ..it can not be spread out to give you the right amount of material needed to cut the blank and you can not mark accurately any info simply because it's already a shrunk piece of plastic
                      When you use the method, you have to cut out your blank oversize. As you home in on the fit, you cut away material. So it's true that this method does waste some material.

                      N 5 all the work and data lines that our friend has made on the FSP will be useless .simply because when the metal is stretched those line will change position at each stage of the stretch.
                      This is another valid criticism in my beginner opinion. The lines on the FSP don't change, but the lines you make on the panel do change as the panel stretches and shrinks. You typically mark the panel with a fine point marker (crudely at the beginning) and then periodically erase the lines with alcohol and remark. As you home in on the FSP fit, only very small stretches are being made and so the lines change very little.

                      N3 On a summer day the FSP would give you a different data than on a cold day and possibly lose it's shape
                      This depends on what you make the FSP from -- I'm guessing you won't get good results if you make it from Glad Wrap. The first layer is made from a special kind of printer's tape, the second layer is a specialty fiberglass reinforced tape. Both of these tapes are industrial products that you can't buy in the store, I have no idea what their thermal stability is but I'd guess it's pretty good. The FSP is flexible but very stiff if you pull on it, given that the two tape layers are at 90 degrees.

                      N2 WHY on Earth would one want to look at the shape on the FSP when you can look and gauge the shape on the panel where the FSP has been made from ??
                      Remember that you do need to make gauges from the original panel (see above). Some possible answers to your question: your original surface might be fragile, you might no longer have the original surface, or you might be making a mirror image of the surface by flipping the FSP inside out.

                      Thanks again for responding to my question, and I hope you guys don't take offense by my attempts at describing FSPs. I'm certainly not trying to start an argument here, just sharing some limited information I have. I do recognize that FSPs are kind of a crazy unconventional method.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Joe, no offence taken like I say if you want to keep using the FSP, it's a case of zero f#cks given from me. I was hoping this conversation never made it here but here it is lol
                        thanks neil

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Joe ....most of us here in this Forum are not here to argue about who's right or who wrong, or argue about who does it the wrong way and who does it the right way, we are here simply to show the traditional way used Years ago by many TRADESMAN all around the world, and still used today which brings me back to say please continue the way you like.. use your FSP do the wok the way you like, and we will not be arguing about your methods on panel fabrication
                          Peter T.
                          Last edited by Peter Tommasini; 31-08-19, 09:54 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, a fsp is very forgiving and allows for some fairly major discrepancies. You don’t have to be that accurate for a fsp to ‘fit’ and therefore you look pretty impressive to those that don’t know any better Smoke and mirrors baby !!! Cheers John

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I have to say try it and see if it works for you. Me not so much.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                [QUOTE=joeswamp;n845]I do understand that Peter is not a fan of the FSP but I've never seen an explanation as to what's wrong with the method. Is it that it wastes time? Produces poor quality results? Too limited in application?

                                .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................

                                Joe further more to your question above take a look at our friend making the scoop on the Jag bonnet ...then take a good look at the two ends where the two pieces needs to be welded together... do you see what has happen ? The two ends are diving down like crazy (it's about 1 inch ?)...and that is because the stupid idea of the flexible patterns '' tells him '' to put more shape where really it's NOT NEEDED ! There for the two pieces are too full in the middle and dive down at the two ends ..then take a look at the overall length profile.... and that tell you the same thing........ too full all over .it would need a lot of unnecessary work to set it right ...... when simply he could have used the profiles from the existing bonnet place them in the right place and check the shape wile he was shaping the two panels the right way ...AGAIN .... no need for the flexible pattern. which is time consuming and a waste of time.
                                I as a client.... would not happy to pay for all that time spent in making it in two pieces + weld them together, there for more work involved , when it should only take about 6 hours to make all in one piece and that goes for the front piece as well .......................
                                I simply can not understand his way of working and doing things ??
                                Peter T.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X