Dick's Dome: love it? hate it?

[shelterbuilder]

I asked this question in another (unrelated) thread and got no response, so I'll start a new thread and ask again. My son and I stayed at Dick's Dome many years ago (late 80's I think), and I was surprised to see this type of structure on the trail as a shelter. I've worked with this particular type of structure a couple of times, have played with scale models of it for years, and am somewhat familar with the problems associated with the geometry involved in the design. (No, I wasn't involved with the construction of this shelter!)

What, specifically, do we like or hate about Dick's Dome??

[rafe]

It's the ugliest shelter on the A.T., or at least the ugliest I've seen and (unfortunately) stayed at. Actually, I finished the night sleeping out on the footbridge in front of the shelter. It's rated for occupancy of 4 people, but that's overly generous, IMO. It really is seriously ugly.

[Appalachian Tater]

Here's a pic:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/...&imageuser=928

I was disappointed it was so far off the trail, didn't get to see it, but after seeing the pic and reading comments about it on WhiteBlaze, I don't feel so bad.

[rafe]

Here's a pic:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/...&imageuser=928

I was disappointed it was so far off the trail, didn't get to see it, but after seeing the pic and reading comments about it on WhiteBlaze, I don't feel so bad.

Here's another pic, from this summer's hike.... showing the peeled and peeling shingles. There's almost no level ground in the vicinity of the shelter, and the whole area is rocky.

[aaronthebugbuffet]

Here's a pic:

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/...&imageuser=928

I was disappointed it was so far off the trail, didn't get to see it, but after seeing the pic and reading comments about it on WhiteBlaze, I don't feel so bad.

That eyesore needs to be as far away from the trail as possible.

[shelterbuilder]

Is it the shingles that turn folks off, or the shape? Let's hear some OBJECTIVE impressions, not just the subjective ones.

[Roland]

Where's L.Wolf when we need him?

[rafe]

Is it the shingles that turn folks off, or the shape? Let's hear some OBJECTIVE impressions, not just the subjective ones.

It's everything. It's tiny. It's way off the trail. It's ugly. And there are no tent sites. On the plus side, the stream that runs by it was flowing, even in a drought year.

[Kirby]

Just from looking at the picture, I would not stay there. It does not look very stable, the shingles are feeling off, one strong storm and that shelter could be all but its stone base. Looks awefully small, a 4 person rating is not high enough for an AT shelter, it should be atleast 6. Tent sites should be added, I would hate to walk off the trail a decent distance just to find the shelter full with no where to tent.

Kirby

[max patch]

0.2 off the trail on a blue blaze -- esp since that is where the water is -- is not my definition of a "long way" off the trail.

i checked my journal from my thru after reading the comments herein. all i said was "stayed in what appears to be a new shelter tonight. dome shaped. pouring rain. no one else here."

so apparently the "shape" of the shelter was a non issue to me.

[neo]

I asked this question in another (unrelated) thread and got no response, so I'll start a new thread and ask again. My son and I stayed at Dick's Dome many years ago (late 80's I think), and I was surprised to see this type of structure on the trail as a shelter. I've worked with this particular type of structure a couple of times, have played with scale models of it for years, and am somewhat familar with the problems associated with the geometry involved in the design. (No, I wasn't involved with the construction of this shelter!)

What, specifically, do we like or hate about Dick's Dome??

love it hate it,who needs it,i hate shelters,i think shelter are not needed neo

[rafe]

0.2 off the trail on a blue blaze -- esp since that is where the water is -- is not my definition of a "long way" off the trail.

i checked my journal from my thru after reading the comments herein. all i said was "stayed in what appears to be a new shelter tonight. dome shaped. pouring rain. no one else here."

so apparently the "shape" of the shelter was a non issue to me.

If you were there alone, its diminutive size was a non-issue. And you know what they say... "any port in a storm..." IIRC, it was more like 0.4 mile off the trail. Whatever. I won't be staying there again.

[The Solemates]

this shelter is pretty nasty, but it did save us easter weekend on our thru when we hiked in the dark from the road to get there, all while it was pouring.

[Appalachian Tater]

Is it the shingles that turn folks off, or the shape? Let's hear some OBJECTIVE impressions, not just the subjective ones.

If it keeps the weather out, I would be glad to be in it during a storm. It is small, so I would hope only three or four people would try to take shelter. If I had taken the side trail just to see the unique dome structure, I would be disappointed that there were so few panels. The fact that it is a geometric dome is probably not much of a structural advantage given the number of panels and certainly complicated the construction.

This is what I would have expected as a minimum, given the size:

http://www.cccoe.net/stars/graphics/Dome.jpg

On the other hand, it was built by a private individual, and beggars can't be choosers.

[Blissful]

It's everything. It's tiny. It's way off the trail. It's ugly. And there are no tent sites. On the plus side, the stream that runs by it was flowing, even in a drought year.

The water though comes through farmer's fields upstream. Needs to be treated.

There is also a dirt road up the hill behind the shelter that invites neighbors.

[shelterbuilder]

If it keeps the weather out, I would be glad to be in it during a storm. It is small, so I would hope only three or four people would try to take shelter. If I had taken the side trail just to see the unique dome structure, I would be disappointed that there were so few panels. The fact that it is a geometric dome is probably not much of a structural advantage given the number of panels and certainly complicated the construction.

This is what I would have expected as a minimum, given the size:

http://www.cccoe.net/stars/graphics/Dome.jpg

On the other hand, it was built by a private individual, and beggars can't be choosers.

I can't access the link that you provided - my computer's going wacky again! I'd really like to see it....

Dick's Dome is NOT a true geodesic dome - geodesics are based on a six-sided geometry. This dome is based on a five-sided geometry. In theory, 5-sided domes are easier to build than 6-sided ones, even by folks who have only basic carpentry skills. Building a geodesic is a REAL project - putting up the framework for a 5-sided can be done by one person in an afternoon! You just have to pay attention to detail.

With no structural modifications, there are size limits to a 5-sided. I believe the builder reached those limits with Dick's Dome.

[Appalachian Tater]

Dick's Dome is NOT a true geodesic dome - geodesics are based on a six-sided geometry. This dome is based on a five-sided geometry. In theory, 5-sided domes are easier to build than 6-sided ones, even by folks who have only basic carpentry skills. Building a geodesic is a REAL project - putting up the framework for a 5-sided can be done by one person in an afternoon! You just have to pay attention to detail.

With no structural modifications, there are size limits to a 5-sided. I believe the builder reached those limits with Dick's Dome.

Please inform the Buckminster Fuller Institute then, they need to change their logo: http://www.bfi.org/node

My understanding of geodesic domes is that they are usually based on triangles, not necessarily on pentagons or hexagons. However, though I have had some training in such matters, this is not my area of expertise. Regardless, R. Buckminster Fuller is one of the great thinkers of the 20th century.

[shelterbuilder]

Please inform the Buckminster Fuller Institute then, they need to change their logo: http://www.bfi.org/node

My understanding of geodesic domes is that they are usually based on triangles, not necessarily on pentagons or hexagons. However, though I have had some training in such matters, this is not my area of expertise. Regardless, R. Buckminster Fuller is one of the great thinkers of the 20th century.

Sorry for not being precise - both structures utilize the triangle as a base geometric form - but if you look at the paterning of the triangles in a geodesic, you can find a pattern (six triangles with their apexes joined at a central point) which forms a hexagon, hence my use of the term "six-sided". You will not see the same pattern in the type of dome that I refer to as "five-sided" - the triangles are simply linked side-to-side, with the apexes alternating "up and down".

By the way, Buckminster Fuller was an alien.

[Appalachian Tater]

I agree. If aliens live among us, surely he was one.

At least one of his patents was for a dome based on pentagons:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Doff%26sa%3DN

Geometry is beautiful.

[rafe]

Regardless, R. Buckminster Fuller is one of the great thinkers of the 20th century.

We agree, again. I had the honor and pleasure of hearing him speak while in college. He gave a fascinating lecture about the role of oceans, ships, and maps in the course of human history. We were all spellbound.