Compromise

This is getting really sick.

 

I do not have any spacifics to give you. Given the nature of the computer aided process I know that these things have to exist. That's the real buggaboo. I don't know for sure what those assumptions are so I cannot place total faith in computer solutions for real world boats. I belive they are useful tools but at the end of the day what comes out of the computer has to make sense.

 

Pedantic is a word that springs to mind...
One of us obviously doesn't understand the intent of Mike's post....

 

Given this position it would help me a lot to put faith in you once again if you would take some of those unlimited funds and build that 12/12 , 3 ton coastal cruiser you seem to want to optimise. Then we can test it and veryify all of your great ideas?

 

Not so.. if there's not some cost effectiveness there's no optimization either..

 

Pierre
You do not need to have faith in me. The last thing I would want is people to have blind faith in anything I say. Just weigh what I offer and do your own evaluation.

What I have found in this community is that there is a lot of "common wisdom" that I am prepared to challenge. I can usually back what I offer with my own test work or hands on experience. Others just regurgitate what they have read or been taught. They do not have enquiring minds and they accept the information because it was offered by someone in apparent authority.

I can give you examples where most of the apparent experts on this forum have no idea on topics they wade into with apparent authority. No doubt it embarrasses them and I am not inclined to point it out in the open but I can show you if you want. It may make you more critical of what they regurgitate.

I want to foster knowledge and information not pump egos.

Rick W

 

If cost is no object then it does not bound the design space and is of no interest. Hence no need to consider it in reaching the optimum.

Rick W

 

Lucky...coz based on the 34:1 state of this poll, yours must've taken a bit of a battering!

As far as your attempts to take the debate out of the public forum, one can only assume you want to do so in order to prevent the people that you intend to malign from defending their well-earned reputations.
There are indeed experts in a number of yacht design related fields that participate in this forum. We are very lucky to have them. A number, sadly, have left as a result of the kind of ill-informed abuse that you have regularly doled out.

I agree with your stance that one shouldn't simply accept the common wisdom...but the intelligent enquiring mind would at least have the decency to make challenges to that wisdom with respect. You say you "can usually back what I offer with my own test work or hands on experience". Yet when asked to do so you either ignore the question or abuse the person who asked it.
You deride these 'experts' - many who have published peer-reviewed papers on the topics in question - yet refuse to show evidence to back up your own position.

 

I do not have to offer any more than give you the reference posts. You can determine for yourself how silly they were with the comments they made.

I am happy if people challenge and offer useful information. If it is abuse or sniping then it is wasting the forums time. A bit like this thread you started.

Some people simply cannot abide a person who plays with pedal boats offering advice on matters outside pedal boats. The reason I started playing with these things was to do rapid development at an affordable scale to improve my understanding of boat design. The health and relaxation benefits are just spin offs.

On the other hand people who play with models in swimming pool size test tanks tout themselves as world authorities on boat design. It does not compute with me. My scale is relevant to the size of boat I want to eventually build. My assessment tools are proven in my range of interest.

Rick W

 

Then it's just a waste of money.. and to waste it you can aswell have a helicopter and to stay in the best hotels, have Gordon Ramsay cooking your breakfast omelet and (money) sucking concubines for every day of the week.. and I'd call it optimized coastal cruising

 

Each his own. If that is your idea of enjoyment then so be it.

The greatest enjoyment I have ever had on the water is on my pedal boats. It is satisfying to know I am achieving a good speed under my own effort and getting health benefits as well.

Other people dive out of aeroplanes for their enjoyment or some row across an ocean for the enjoyment, challenge and satisfaction.

If your idea of fun and enjoyment is having Gordon Ramsay cooking omelet for breakfast - good luck. I hope you achieve it.

Rick W

 

You missed my point... It's a waste of money!

And let's keep discussion of the qualities of the design and standards of the production separately.. Most of us (just my reckoning) are talking about the quality of the design which is allways a compromise. Unless the design SOR's are quite simple to achive like an anchor buoy for fresh water used with a specific boat in planet where the weather doesn't chance etc..
In production optimal quality is achiavable, in theory anyways..

 

In economics it's simply known as a trade-off. This has a little different connotation than a compromise. Compromises can be made in opinions -- such as a person with the wrong opinion moving closer to a person with the right opinion. A trade-off always requires you to give up something to gain something.

A trade-off is done by someone who has two correct beliefs that are incompatible with the desired optimal outcome. If you can show that one of those beliefs is incorrect, you have a compromise.

 

Sorry for missing the point.

Back to the point then - Actually two of the best major projects I have reviewed in recent times did not have budget constraints. The return on investment was so great that money was no object. The interesting outcome in both cases was that they were delivered in much shorter time than estimated and the target cost was more than the actual.

The projects had very strong technical emphasis with virtually no naval gazing on costs. Innovation was encouraged to save time and in the course of the projects this saved money.

Sometimes we can get too concerned with costs. If you have to worry about the cost it takes the enjoyment out of it.

Rick W

 

Rick, you seem to forget that both of these threads were the result of sniping by you:

WA -

RW -

It simply went downhill from there...

I started this thread in an effort to move this argument away from what could have been an interesting and valuable thread. You knew then, just as you do now, that I have never suggested that a client ought to settle for mediocrity. Nor that any of the 34 others who have voted in this poll do either. You could have very easily suggested that perhaps I could have phrased it in a different way... as I put forward a few posts back. But no, you decided instead to launch a verbal assault on an entire profession in an effort to justify an indefensable position that you put yourself into.

I have no doubt that there are posts all around the place where people have resorted to calling you names - with some regret, I've done so myself. I'm sure, that like me, they have all done so out of exasperation at your arrogance.
I look forward to you posting links to as many as you desire...