Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

English Wheel Techniques

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Chris_Hamilton View Post
    I re-read the thread of your friend on the other site and his car from start to finish the other night. and a pic of the car from behind and two completely different profiles on each fender.
    i'm pretty sure i mentioned that to him when i saw it! the FSP told him it was correct though and any advise he would get from the creator would be that he didn't read the FSP correctly
    thanks neil

    Comment


    • #32
      The strange thing is that he knows his car is asymmetrical and he wishes now that he had made a buck, but he is still a staunch defender of the FSP.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Chazza View Post
        The strange thing is that he knows his car is asymmetrical and he wishes now that he had made a buck, but he is still a staunch defender of the FSP.
        ON video N 2 when he makes the Jaguar front guard he has the same old problem of the panel been too full and dipping down like there is no tomorrow , so what does he do ? He stretches the edge to the kingdom cam and still he does not realize that the problem is the FSP . Then he goes and said..''you will have this problem when making a new panel every time'' which goes without saying ..it's simply not true !

        Peter T.

        PS to all of you guys out there I will have a video on a very interesting shape soon keep look out for it

        Comment


        • #34
          LOL, Chris, that is great.

          And don't forget they paid a lot of money to be taught by their master how to swing that rock, so by golly it MUST be the right way to do it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Peter Tommasini View Post

            ON video N 2 when he makes the Jaguar front guard he has the same old problem of the panel been too full and dipping down like there is no tomorrow , so what does he do ? He stretches the edge to the kingdom cam and still he does not realize that the problem is the FSP . Then he goes and said..''you will have this problem when making a new panel every time'' which goes without saying ..it's simply not true !
            I think I'm finally understanding the fundamental problem with FSPs, Peter really explained it well in this section of the first video:

            https://youtu.be/KD7eAwO-BGQ?t=2190

            The issue isn't that the method is theoretically unsound, the issue is that when the panel is in the wrong configuration it can be very hard to measure what's important. So in Peter's demo he puts a ton of shape into the square piece. If you made an FSP off that and compared it to a flat piece off the rack you would see a big disagreement and know to wheel in the middle of the panel. But the problem is when you arrange the piece into a barrel configuration, the shape has all but disappeared. The FSP will mirror this, but now the difference between the unwheeled panel and the FSP is 1/64" instead of 1/2". Thus it is very easy to underwheel or overwheel it.

            Basically what this means is that any small errors you make when the piece is out of arrangement can get wildly magnified when the piece is in arrangement. If you make panels this way they won't be precise in the end and will likely require rework. I think this is why Wray keeps overdeveloping the panels.

            Apologies if you guys were trying to explain this to me and I wasn't getting it...
            Last edited by joeswamp; 04-22-2020, 05:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Then fundamental problem with them is they are flexible. They are a crutch. Best thing you can do Joe is forget that you have ever heard of a flexible shape pattern. Think about how many beautiful and nearly priceless cars have been made over the last 120 years. I don't think anyone at Scaglietti, or PininFarina, ever heard of FSP's and if they did their reaction would be like Peter's.
              It's a flawed idea that the more you try to logically wrap your head around it will just end up confusing you more. They are a crutch developed by someone who has an understanding of metal shaping but lacks a complete understand of shaping. Make real profile gauges. They won't lie to you like a FSP does.

              Comment


              • #37
                I don't think the problem is that they are flexible, paper patterns are flexible. Also FSPs are intended to be used along with profiles; the profiles give you the bending information, the FSP only gives you the local shrink/stretch info. In a rough sense, they do sort of "work" -- the parts Wray is making do look like Jaguar parts, but they seem to fall short of traditional quality standards and they require substantial rework at the end.

                I really think this is one of those ideas that works in theory but not in practice -- like if there were a way to measure the FSP/panel differences with an accuracy of a millionth of an inch, the method might work (although there could be other issues). As Peter says, you really need to work the panel close to its final arrangement if you want accuracy.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I agree with Chris; let us forget that an FSP even exists. If the bloke who invented it can't make it work properly I shall ignore it,

                  Cheers Charlie

                  PS Reminds me of mechanical drill bit sharpeners – useless!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Hi,

                    I will be honest, I tried FSP on a oil tank side piece, do to the videos and the discussion on this forum. I made template boards and the whole tape on tape exercise as described by the FSP designer. My results were the same as his, which was disappointing, but some what expected. As mentioned here, as the panel stretches, so does your reference points. I found, instead of a methodical, "beginning, middle, end" to a project, it became "helter skelter" and you bounce all around. The FSP leaves a lot to interpret, can you get close, sure, but there are many other ways that would get you spot on. Technique is lost, understanding how the metal responds, is lost... You reach a point where you are just wheeling out dents and hope it fits the FSP. It requires no skill with mediocre results. Easy to teach, to get people thru the doors, i guess...

                    So why did I try? Curiosity...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by kenc View Post
                      LOL, Chris, that is great.

                      And don't forget they paid a lot of money to be taught by their master how to swing that rock, so by golly it MUST be the right way to do it.
                      Ken ..question for you..... how do you think the FSP would help anyone doing that exercise.....REMEMBER.... that we done at your place (the one shown by Mr Glover) now that would be worth showing
                      Peter T.

                      Comment


                      • kenc
                        kenc commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Peter, That panel was quoted by a famous American metalshaper as an 11/10 difficulty panel. You knocked it up in an hour or two as I remember WITHOUT an FSP! No, I just can't see how the FSP would help, especially with all the shape that panel had on the top half.
                        John Glover didn't use an FSP either!

                    • #41
                      Originally posted by joeswamp View Post

                      I think I'm finally understanding the fundamental problem with FSPs, Peter really explained it well in this section of the first video:

                      https://youtu.be/KD7eAwO-BGQ?t=2190

                      The issue isn't that the method is theoretically unsound, the issue is that when the panel is in the wrong configuration it can be very hard to measure what's important. So in Peter's demo he puts a ton of shape into the square piece. If you made an FSP off that and compared it to a flat piece off the rack you would see a big disagreement and know to wheel in the middle of the panel. But the problem is when you arrange the piece into a barrel configuration, the shape has all but disappeared. The FSP will mirror this, but now the difference between the unwheeled panel and the FSP is 1/64" instead of 1/2". Thus it is very easy to underwheel or overwheel it.

                      Basically what this means is that any small errors you make when the piece is out of arrangement can get wildly magnified when the piece is in arrangement. If you make panels this way they won't be precise in the end and will likely require rework. I think this is why Wray keeps overdeveloping the panels.

                      Apologies if you guys were trying to explain this to me and I wasn't getting it...
                      OK Joe now that you are understanding and starting to see the difference , I would strongly suggest to pic a panel shape ,then shape the panels one way using normal paper and working on the panel by having it as close to the arrangement as possible, then do the same panel using the FSP method and working it with barrel arrangement , then post some pics on the forum of the two panels showing the profiles as well, and let all the others beginners to look at it so they can also understand
                      Peter T.
                      PS no need to apologies we all make mistakes when learning , the important thing here is the fact that you understand and learn

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        New people carving stone almost always want to carve the pretty face or titillaing anatomy first. Even if that detail turns out ok, it's usually spatially located in the wrong place. People cooking want a gadget that slices and dices or cook a dish with the push of a button for them. Take away the gadget and they're useless in a kitchen. As long as they know how tape works, an FSP lets a person quickly and easily make a representation of an elaborate complex metal shape that is otherwise beyond their reach. Then they'll work harder to validate their approach than doing it the right way would entail.

                        It's my understanding that the FSP originated with a sculptor working on a sculpture project, not via a coach builder making accurate body panels for restoration work. Then it was used elsewhere, where artistic license isn't as viable. context of a method can be very significant. so far 99.9% of the discussion I've read about the FSP matter has nothing to do with pure art or sculpture. A rock makes a good headstone. A hammer drives nails well. Each can be substituted for the other, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

                        The siren song of easily making a "fun" part of a project first and with inadequate skills will always draw people to alternate methods. Most will cling to such methods rather than admit they're wrong and start over. By comparison, doing things right is hard and slow. That's why people embrace the short cuts. The more you acknowledge those who cling to the bad ways, the more relevant they can claim to be.

                        Either join them or let them go & move on.


                        ​​​

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          Originally posted by cliffrod View Post
                          New people carving stone almost always want to carve the pretty face or titillaing anatomy first. Even if that detail turns out ok, it's usually spatially located in the wrong place. People cooking want a gadget that slices and dices or cook a dish with the push of a button for them. Take away the gadget and they're useless in a kitchen. As long as they know how tape works, an FSP lets a person quickly and easily make a representation of an elaborate complex metal shape that is otherwise beyond their reach. Then they'll work harder to validate their approach than doing it the right way would entail.

                          It's my understanding that the FSP originated with a sculptor working on a sculpture project, not via a coach builder making accurate body panels for restoration work. Then it was used elsewhere, where artistic license isn't as viable. context of a method can be very significant. so far 99.9% of the discussion I've read about the FSP matter has nothing to do with pure art or sculpture. A rock makes a good headstone. A hammer drives nails well. Each can be substituted for the other, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

                          The siren song of easily making a "fun" part of a project first and with inadequate skills will always draw people to alternate methods. Most will cling to such methods rather than admit they're wrong and start over. By comparison, doing things right is hard and slow. That's why people embrace the short cuts. The more you acknowledge those who cling to the bad ways, the more relevant they can claim to be.

                          Either join them or let them go & move on.


                          ​​​
                          Well said Cliff.....
                          One more thing comes to mind, why would one spend A good part of one hour (or more ) to make a FSP to check the shape is about to make when one has the shape is trying to make right in front . Not to mention that plastic tape will stretch when applied on, and stretch also when it's pulled off the panel ??? Madness!!

                          When all it's needed are a few vertical profiles of the shape say about every 120 mm, one or two horizontal , get all info's oft he stretching and shrinking needed from the paper patter and one is ready to shape.
                          Peter T.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X