Realistic scantilings

[DanishBagger]

Wow, did you ever add some to this post when you edited it!!

Well, in order to make this as short as possible, I will keep my responses to your rehash as short as possible, although I'll "keep" everything you say - I don't want someone to suggest I was being "selective" (seeing as I'm that proverbial journo …).

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Yes there is an upper limit on how big you can go without transverse frames, but frameles 57 footers have been built and cruised enough miles year round on the north coast of BC , in all weathers ,to go around the world, proving their structural reliabilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

I'm glad you at least recognise there's an upper limit. That at least is a step in the right direction.
The latter part of the statement, however, is simply not true. Even if it's true that "hundreds" of your boats went around the world, that does not mean they're inherently seaworthy. How many times does one have to say that before it seeps in?

You suggest that pounding on a lee shore in 8 ft swells, pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef , surviving hurricane force winds, colliding with a freighter, and a quarter century of successful cruising with no structural failures , etc is not a structural analysis?

Actually, I'm not just "suggesting" it's not structural analysis, I'm concluding by way of reasoning, that anecdotal evidence does not amount to any form of real, scientific evidence. Not to mention that even your anecdotal evidence is coming from the builder of the boats, the seller, if you will, and as such (being the journo I am at heart) is something to be critical of, since you have everything to gain by pretending your boats are the end-all to strength and seaworthiness.

********! Now that is self delusion!

Really? Show us some proof of your anecdotal evidence, and when you have done that, show os some real analysis.
What I find the most worrying about your way of providing "proof" is that you let the builder-com-sailors test whether they're seaworthy and strong. Otherwise you would have done some calculations. No, instead you let people stake their life at this, and if it works, you can sell a few more. However, I have to make a point here again, that your anecdotes are simply just anecdotes, and so far, they have proven to be nothing more than part of a sales pitch.

Don Shore wrote a book called "Around the world in Viski, " an excellent book and a hard one to put down.I can highly recommend it. It's available at Harbour Chandlery in Nanaimo. He did a circumnavigation in one of my 36 footers. His son was aboard when he pounded across the Fijian Coral reef. He had family members join him at various points in his circumnavigation. You claim that he is a liar and that all the people who joined him are liars, or self delusional and only imagined it? You claim that the tug boat operators in Suva who pulled him off and told him that had the boat been anything else, including aluminium, it would have broken up quicky, are all liars, or only imagined it?

You obviously didn't read all the preceding posts. Go read Joshua Slocum. As I said, anecdotes does not mean anything is proven. Just that it is a possiblity.

When Winston Bushnell did his single season passage thru the Northwest Passage on Dove 3 , he had two crew members aboard , Len Sherman, and George Hone who works for West Marine in Nanaimo. Both George and Len wrote books about the trip.

See above.

You suggest that they are liars ,or only imagined the trip?

Not at all. Please refrain from the ill-thought strawman argumentation. It doesn't suit someone who's trying to sell designs that people are expected to trust their family's lifes to.

You suggest that the coastguard members they met along the way are either liars,

Strawman again. And as of yet, you're still well into the anecdote-part.

or only imagined that they met them?

See above. Especially with regards to strawman argumentation.

You suggest that the people in Pond Inlet who looked after the boat were all liars , or only imagined it? When Mungo spent 16 days aground on the west coast of Baja , pounding in 8 ft surf,and was winched off thru 8 ft surf, with no major damage , you suggest the skipper, Godfrey Stephens was lying ,as was Norman Abbey and Rudy Butula, who helped winch the boat off the beach,or that they were all delusional and only imagined it?

Sigh!

Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You suggest that Patrick Cameron, who delivered the boat back to BC was a liar , or delusional and only imagined it? You suggest that Bill Mottershead on Roan , who encountered Hurricane force winds while returning to BC from Hawaii a couple of years ago was a liar, or only imagined it?

See above. You might learn something.

No vessel in Canada under 20 tons or 10 hp requires any documentation, and none under 20 tons requires registry. Registry was once simple and thus common, but recently the bureaucratic personal empire builders have made it so complex that fewer and fewer pleasure boaters bother with it.

Ah, yes. What a "clever" way of circumventing providing anything solid to all your claims about how many were sold and sailed around the world.

I've sent plans all over the world , from Malaysia to Hungary to Argentina, etc etc. Now that the Spanish version of my book is out, more will be built in Spanish speaking countries ( and Portugese, etc) .

Oh, I see. By the same argument, the more people have read your book, the more it must be true. I guess that's why so many people believe in scientology and so many other Spaghetti monsters

You suggest that Canadian federal registry is mandatory for all boats built in both Canada and around the world? You suggest that any boats built anywhere in the world to my designs which are not on the Canadian registry don't exist?

Personally I don't (I wasn't the one stating anything about those things as I don't know about things like that), however, I do notice that once again you're making use of your favourite argumentation form: The everlasting strawman. The thing is, you misread, misinterpret and misrepresant everything we say, all in order to make your own arguments look like real, valid arguments. Guess what, they aren't and never will be. Prove your point by way of facts, instead of this ridiculous show.

You have a serious credibility problem, and appear to be in need of phsychiatric help.

The funny part is that not only are you making use of the strawman argumentation, but you actually use it to come to the conclusion that ends in an ad hominem. Now, there's the sign of someone who has no facts, but is thinking that by lashing out, people might think you have proven your point.

There is still the option of building bigger vessels using origami techniques , then putting in whatever interior structural members it takes to make you feel comfortable , saving huge amounts of time and avoiding much potential distortion in the proccess.

Yes, but with your guess work, we would need to pay a real naval architect to do that for us, wouldn't we? Or are you suggesting, that we should just put in structural members at random in order to even out your dislike of and discomfort with math and proper analysis?

Any existing design for a hard chine or radiused boat can be built using origami methods, so it is no more limiting as to shape than any hard chine or radiused chine construction. I hear no one here complaining about the shape limits of their construction.

We're questioning the strength if a boat built like that gets too big.

I have never suggested that the proccess can't be improved .

No, you're saying outright that naval architects still think they're building in wood and that "ancient" structural members are obsolete. That your method of building is stronger than that method. That your method is so much better. Yet you provide no analysis, no nothing. Hell, you can't even make a coherent argument, presenting your case.

Improvements that I couldn't imagine 20 boats ago seem so obvious now. That will continue to happen. It is an admission that you have lost the arguement when you have to put words in someones mouth in order to have something to argue against.

Pot, kettle, anyone?

It's frightening you're aware of the problem with putting words in other people's respective mouths, yet you're the only one doing it. But then again, I simply think it's another stab at that strawman-streak you entered into long ago.

What others seem to suggest here is that methods derived 50 years ago cannot possibly be improved upon.

Not at all. We have explained that numerous times to you. The methods and analysis are constantly improved, yet you seem determined to pretend they're not. You're worse than those people claiming the world is 6000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. For further explanation see above. Or, if so inclined, I suggest you read the thread again, beginning at page one, post one.

The math shows that the best approach ,according to mathematical theory, is the thinest possible plate with the maximum amount of framing. The math doesn't take into account the much lower forgiveness of thinner plate when it comes to distortion ,corrosion, etc. It assumes an even pressure on the hull, not the point loading of a sharp rock, in which case thicker pating is the only defense, and transverse framing with lighter plate reduces the chances of survival and resistance to holing drastically.

Besides some small details I disagree on (but I'm no naval architect, so I'll let that go untouched), let's say that is exactly right and spot on, and there's nothing more to it, that does NOT in any way, form, or fashion mean you can make the logical leap and then declare frames unnecessary, simply because you're going thicker in the plate. That's simply ignorance at a professional level, if you ask me (which you didn't, but I'm a believer in free advice).

My boats have outsailed Benteaus , Coopers etc, proving that they suffer no performance disadvantage. Their passage time have been as good as ,or better than most other cruising boats.

Besides the ridiculously sales-man tactics presented here (again with no evidence, not even of the anecdotal kind), there's absolutely no relevance in that statement. But even if it would have been the truth, because a boat sails fast have nothing to do with whether it's build strong enough. One might even say, that a lighter boat will go faster, and thus (by your argumentation) the lighter and thus faster a boat is, the stronger and more seaworthy it must be.

How does the ocean know when a boat of a given weight has 4,000 lbs in framing , like a steel tahiti ketch, or the same weight in plating , and no framing, before knowing how much resistance to put up?

I hope you're not serious, or suggesting that we argue something like that?

Friends cruising the BC coast have told me . "Geeze Brent , it seems like almost every anchorage I go to has one or more of your boats in it. They seem to out number other steel boats by about three to one." I've yet to see or hear of a McNaughton boat being seen here or anywhere else. I think the ease of construction , the cost saved, the fairness of the hull and their unblemished reputation for strength and reliability have a lot to do with it. If that were not the case , there would be far fewer of them.

You're seriously beginning to make a fool of yourself, what with all that salesman tactics. Show us some proof instead. But, again, this is not about how many boats are sold. Bayliner sells a whole lot of boats, yet I wouldn't cross an ocean in one. Optimist dinghies sell in huge numbers, yet that doesn't prove them to be worthy for the big ocean. As I've explained earlier, you're trying to use the McDonald's argument, and you're not even doing it well the way you just make claims.

I don't see McNaughton giving the figures for their designs here, nor Mike giving the figures for his designs. How many of his steel boat designs had McNaughton himself sailed across oceans, or built with is own hands, or maintained for over ten years. You learn a lot when you do, knowledge you could never gain doing calculations while sitting at a computer without getting your hands dirty.( I've cruised 11 months a year since 1976 and crossed the Pacific singlehanded 9 times in my boats, and built with my own hands over 3 dozen, all for happy cruisers, most of whom wouldn't want any other design.) You don't learn much about steel without getting your hands dirty.

Frankly, by now you must know that your anecdotal evidence is worthless. And your ad hominems at well-respected naval architects are nothing more than infantile.

I give my clients all the structural materials list , detail materials list , loftings, rig, mast details, interior tankage , self steering, inside steering , etc . everything that matters, then answer their few remaining questions by email.

Ah, yes. We normal people call that getting send a recipe and a shopping list. Analysis is what we're talking about, not how mani square meters of steel one is to use and how to stretch it into shape. By email, you say? So, I take it you send them the analysis if they ask for it? Come now, let us mere mortals see it too.

Where has the 50 years out of date steel boatbuilding methods got cruisers? Deeply in debt, and taking years to do what I enable them to accomplish in a few days with far more distortion , maintenance problems and bondo work.

Ah, yes, being able to slap something together quickly certainly proves that the designs by extension must be strong and seaworthy.

There are few more effective ways to make a total fool out of oneself that to proclaim that that which as worked well for over a quarter century and endured many extreme torture tests, and tens of thousands of miles of ocean cruising in all conditions,"Won't work"

Strawman. We're not saying it wont work. We're saying that there's a limit to the size where this should be trusted. We're saying that you claims that this is stronger than proper analysed boatbuilding is marketing speak and ask you to provide the proof.

I can imagine fewer more foolish comments than to claim that a boat that has endured pounding on lee shores in huge surf for 16 days , a pounding across 300 yards of coral reef in huge swells , a collision with a freighter and a passage thru the NW passage ,etc etc , is "not strong enough."

Well, you're not very imaginative then. You see, just because I once (on my bicycle) slammed head-on into a car, while I was going 30 miles and hour and the front fork survived unscathed, doesn't mean it will next time I hit something. As a matter of fact, the next bike I bought (same model, as the first one got stolen) had both the frame and fork bent from me falling on a straight piece of asphalt with a kerb to the right. You being selective and choosing the first version, and then pretending it's strong enough for anything out there is simply ignorant. And "foolish", if you will.

For every one cruiser who believes the mathematical snake oil salesmen, there are about a dozen who see the sheer folly of their arguements and decide that the" Be reasonable and do it the hard way " advocates are a millstone around their necks in achieving their dream of going cruising in a sound , seaworthy metal boat, without too much of lifes limited time slipping away.

Yes, you're absolutelitydoodeley right. We should all shun analysis and scientific method and go back to guesswork and ignorance. I mean, them damn snakeoil salesman are trying to say the world is round and we revolve around the sun! Sheesh!. Sorry, but the only snakeoiler here is you, Brent.

They leave the more gullible to toil on the treadmill , following the self serving advice to " Do it in a way that fills my pockets first" , while they get their asses out cruising, quickly , affordably and safely.If you want advice on how to get out on the cruising grounds quickly , cheaply and safely, and has been able to stay cruising and off the treadmill for decades, get your advice from someone who has accomplished that, not from someone who hasn't.

Only people who believe anything they hear, without bother demanding proof are gullible. It seems you're catering to gullible people. Btw, did you know that the word gullible is not in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000?

Colvin estimates the time for a hull and deck construction at 1,000 hours, a job I tack together in 100 hours. My origami 36 has 1/7th the amount of chine cutting , and welding that there is in a Van de Stadt design. The total welding time on a 36 to painting is 350 hours.

See above.

Tanton yachts and Graeme Shanon are both designing in Origami now. Strongall boats are still going strong, and are well proven, as are frameles boats designed by Roberts over the last few decades( or do you also claim that they and their owners are lying or imagining it?)

Read the thread, not to mention this post.

If I were trying to fill my pockets, I'd be charging a lot more that $350 for a set of plans for a 36, or a lot more than $20 for my book.

It doesn't matter HOW much you take per sold design or per sold book. You're the seller, and as such, demanding you provide proof of your claims is basic stuff. Even for numbnuts.

What I am trying to do is debunk the elitist myth that in order to enjoy the cruising life, you have to spend many years on the treadmill , paying snake oil salesment for the latest trend in boat technology( often recycled from decades past) or you will sink for sure.

Noone is saying that at all.

It's sad to see people who belong in the cruising life discouraged by the demands of snake oil salesment convincing them that they need far more money than they have, before they can go cruising.

Ah, yes, my heart go out to them. Because that is what naval architects do

The number of boats built quickly and affordably to my designs , often by people who could never have afforded to go cruising had they followed the advice of the self serving snake oil salesment, who try convince them that the most convoluted, expensive and time consuming way is the only one available, suggest that I have been successful.

Yes, it does suggest you have had success in selling your ideas. Just like Ron L. Hubbard has had succes with selling his ideas. Succes is not proof of your products being better than any other, and it's certainly not proof of anything you have said so far.

Their cruising yarns are a constant reward, long after the money has been spent. Besides, while I am living aboard full time, more money than It takes to live and cruise is quite irellevant to me anyway. Getting them free and off the treadmill gives me a far greater sense of accomplishment than money in the bank and the numbers on some banker's computer.

Good for you, but the thing is, analysis and scientific method is not "numbers on some banker's computer".

Many of my responses to your questions have had a habit of being mysteriously deleted till now. Hope these make it.
Brent

Ah, yes. It's a conspiracy. You know, just like all the scientists in the world conspire in order to keep the public thinking the earth is round, but it's really flat, and that global warming is not here, but they're only out to get the oil companies.
Please. Grow. the. ****. up.

[M&M Ovenden]

Wow, I feel like I just read a preachers speech.

Danish bagger, as a journalist you disappoint me . Have you not researched Brents books title? Having done so you would of at least given him some credit for it.

"How To Build a Better Steel Boat: A Heretic's Guide"

Heretic:A heretic is a person who expresses or acts on opinions considered to be heresy.

Heresy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

[DanishBagger]

Originally Posted by M&M Ovenden

Wow, I feel like I just read a preachers speech.

Danish bagger, as a journalist you disappoint me . Have you not researched Brents books title? Having done so you would of at least given him some credit for it.

"How To Build a Better Steel Boat: A Heretic's Guide"

Heretic:A heretic is a person who expresses or acts on opinions considered to be heresy.

Heresy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

Haha, I know it's quite long

But the thing is, we have all been there, trying to reason with him, showing him how one cannot simply dismiss analysis and scientific method and so on. Yet, he chooses to rehash the entire thread, adding strawman argumentation and whatnot, apparently thinking that by making it long enough and incoherent enough, people would somehow succumb to the strong arguments he's presenting

I actually hadn't researched the title. Disappointingly enough. However, I did mention early on, why I chose not to. Heretic, lol. Yup, if one cannot argue properly, one can always just make unfounded claims, suggesting anything is "just better", you just have to believe it, then it will be all clear.

I can't help but think of that other thread - sigh …

Oh, btw, did you see the link I made to the American Heritage dictionary? Just saying, you'll never know when you'll need that information.

[M&M Ovenden]

OH no,no, I meant Brents post made me think of a preachers speech. Not even because of the length, it's the rhythm and the intensity of his text reminds me a preacher. He almost manages to make me feel guilty of building the boat I actually dreamed of rather than one of his.
Your replies are quite entertaining and often culturally instructive.

[DanishBagger]

Originally Posted by M&M Ovenden

OH no,no, I meant Brents post made me think of a preachers speech. Not even because of the length, it's the rhythm and the intensity of his text reminds me a preacher. He almost manages to make me feel guilty of building the boat I actually dreamed of rather than one of his.
Your replies are quite entertaining and often culturally instructive.

Thanks M. It's much appreciated

I still think my "funny" with the dictionary is good fun if used towards the likes of Brent and that "designer" who could circumvent drag and point pressure with javelins.


Btw. What do you mean by "culturally instructive"? Am I showing my colours that clearly, poor pseudo-translations, or something else (or all)?

[M&M Ovenden]

DB,
I don't mean cultural as "foreign culture" but as "general culture". The same as Mikes arguments are technically very interesting I would say your argumentation (or rhetoric) is culturally interesting, and adding to my general culture. I had never heard of the straw man argument or put a name on the Macdonald one ect... It's not all that easy to pin a good from a bad argument and mostly explain why it is such, but it is a necessary skill these days to survive politicians and journalists . I'm keeping notes of your methods, that's what I mean about adding to my general culture.
English is my second language as well, I think it's the case of many on this forum.

Cheers,
Murielle

[DanishBagger]

haha, Yeah damn journalists. The only group of people less trustworthy than journalists are politicians if you ask people (as in a survey). Yet, they still go "it's true! I saw it on the news/read it in the paper!". That's food for thought, methinks.

Seriously though, never thought of it the "instructive"-part that way. I'm glad I can somehow "help", though.

If you really want to, there's a shitload of books about argumentation (logic) , and especially fallacies out there. The net is of course easier and quicker, but I like books for things like this.

Also, another great thing is the "Reductio ad Absurdum", which isn't (as many people think) whenever someone makes something absurd. I sometimes call them analogies, as that is how I use analogies in a debate. It's a way of showing (if done properly) that if an argument doesn't hold water in the absurd situation, then it doesn't hold water in the context we're discussing, because you cannot use a statement, an argument, as one thing in one context, and another thing in another context. In other words, an argument cannot be valid if it's only true under _some_ circumstances. Therefore, if we reduce the argument "ad absurdum" we will show the opponent (hopefully)that his arguments/assumptions/premises aren't valid, and thus his conclusion must be wrong, or at least unfounded. I usually go "with that argument you can defend XXX" or some sort. Because it can.
It only proves though, that the argument itself is wrong. Even a blind man can hit the spot. So the conlusion might be dead on, it's just an unfounded one.

Sorry, that was way more than you wanted, but that's why I use my irritating "absurd" analogies constantly.

It's your second language too? What do you speak when not roaming BD, then?

Heh! I jsut discovered it says Ottawa, so my bet would be french. Sheesh! I need some sleep now (working tonight).

[M&M Ovenden]

French

[DanishBagger]

Originally Posted by M&M Ovenden

French

Yeah, I'm horrendously tired. I'm off to bed now. Sleep tight when you get that far.

[DanishBagger]

Murielle,

Just before I go, I found a good list of typical fallacies:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

And the "McDonald's argument"?

It's this one:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html

[LyndonJ]

Hey Danish (Andre) Murrielle

Great lesson thanks . I agree Murielle, Brent is a faith based prophet who produces sermons and refers to 'the book'.

If it is any consolation that you built your dinosaur way too strong (according to Brent) I would rather be in your 50 footer (beaut boat by the way) in a crisis than in one of Brents more questionable designs (read bigger scaled up versions of his smaller ones).

Wynand put it well saying that Brents designs appeal to the hillbillies. I think they find a kindred spirit in Brents anti establishment anti education .

Some of his boats look awful out of the water too the interface between the chine and the bent plate is a real eyesore in some of the pictures I have seen.

They do look good in the water. They also appear to sail on their ear a bit, look at Utube and search for 'Brent Swain'

The engineers question Brent . In return Brent tries to make engineers look like fools through all sorts of nonsense reasoning about space shuttle crashes and bumble bees. He never addresses any of the real issues and boy that Nizkor website looks like his posts on everything. Now I know what a straw man is too. Thanks Andre

Unfortunate initials for a charismatic heretic .

[DanishBagger]

No problem

[tazmann]

Well I guess I'm a hillbilly so I figured I would give ya a picture of my ugly origami 26 "Brent Swain 26". This is from about a year ago, notice the homemade hillbilly sandblaster! Ive heard a lot of comment about her,never any about being ugly, unsafe, or its a hillbilly boat.
Thanks Guys
Tom

[M&M Ovenden]

Tom,

I find very unfortunate that this thread has come down to some insult to BS boat builders. I was worried this was going to degenerate such way and tried to warn Brent about his manners, his tendency to post derogatory opinions which naturally leads to equivalent responses.

Brent, you still don't seam to get that most people don't have anything against the origami building method. Most people will recognize it is an interesting method among others. As you stated (quite enough) it may have its advantages. You should also recognize that it has limitations which don't suit some peoples needs. It would be wise for your reputation to stop insulting the rest of the boat building community with your little snags about dinosaurs and horse carriages. If you opened your mind a little bit you would find out that there are good reasons why different designers and builders pick different methods and that many of those who design and build framed metal boats these days do so with some very modern technology. You seem to pick your comparisons with a fairly narrow mind. We are not all out there cutting frames with a hack saw and welding with our grandpa's sticks.
Most of your reasons to praise origami boats are not wrong, most of some other peoples reasons to not want an origami boat are also not wrong. Can you accept that? You would do a much better job advertising your views if you did so with respect.

Cheers
Murielle

You seem to be doing a very nice job with your boat and I hope you will get much enjoyment out of it, both during the building process and in the water. I would be lying if I said I like the shapes of the origami boats, I don't, but there are also a lot of other boat that don't meet my personal beauty standards. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I wouldn't ask everyone to like my own hull. Beauty also not all about shape and I can appreciate ones workmanship and effort in building his own boat. From that perspective your boat seems like a nice piece of work. (I envy your sandblaster pot)
As I have been exchanging here with the "bad kids" I want to apologize about the insult.

I will remind you though that Brent has attacked our boats as dinosaurs, our methods as horse carriages technology, our knowledge and skills as those of "snake oil salesment" and I'm most likely missing many insults as there are so many.
That said, I am again sorry you were qualified of hillbilly consequently to be building a BS boat, that was wrong.

Cheers,
Murielle

[Crag Cay]

Well, it all does dave a mediaeval 'religious' feel to it, doesn't it? But I think we may have the context and characters confused. It is possible that Mr Swain is more copernican than people think and is only a heretic if you believe that the ABS guidelines (or Lloyds, ISO, etc) for the construction of steel boats contains the one true path to everything that is holy about metal boat building.

Well, this may be the case, but let's not forget what the rationale for these guidelines really is. They DO NOT represent the latest findings of cutting edge research, but rather are a conservative view of how insurance companies can be confident that the vessels they cover (or with the latter day ISO standards - boats that people buy) do not represent an undue risk. Although they may contain calculations, and some approaches in the more contemporary volumes may be based on engineering principals, they have all been formulated to produce boats that have been proven to work by empirical observation. That is, we know something to be safe because it has been in satisfactory service for X number of years, so let's write a process that will replicate this known safe option.

It's this empirical observation that has been at the very heart of the development of these rules, and still is the only irrefutable component in the development of our structural knowledge. For instance, despite efforts to analyze the stresses and structures in keels over the past decade, it's through observation that, despite all the work that has been done, it's painfully obvious that something is not right with them at the moment. Too many are falling off. It's no good screaming 'it's built to ABS' or 'these calculations prove it's strong enough' when the keel is on the sea floor and the boat is inverted. It makes you look like some papal bigwig telling Copernicus that it doesn't matter what he sees, the bible and the greatest scholars in the known (christian) world, say it's not true.

So if I still had any interest in steel boats I would be fascinated by the work of Mr Swain. With a little bit of checking, we could establish whether he does in fact have real, observable, verifiable evidence that scantlings other than those prescribed by the various authorities, have proved satisfactory in service. If so we could have here a great opportunity to revise our scantling requirements in exactly the same way that almost every change has been made to them in the past: that is we have evidence that something has given satisfactory service.

I know Charles Whittolz did a lot of work on steel boats without transverse frames in the early 80's, all of which are still sailing around. We didn't pursue it because it was felt that the sort of weight saving we were after, could more easily (in research and development time) be gained by the use of composites or by using aluminium decks, cabin houses and cockpits.

We will only make progress if we DON'T merely repeat the work of our fathers. We need to innovate, and empirical observation of what works and what doesn't is still key to this process. Embodying what we learn into rules and prescriptions comes way later. That's why there has been a real effort to not be too prescriptive when developing the new ISO scantling rule. Otherwise we will never have any new boatbuilding methods evolve until someone writes it down. The development of GRP and wood/epoxy didn't wait for the rules to be written. The rules were written in light of the boats that had proved satisfactory in service. We mustn't block such innovation in the future.