Boat Capsize Evidence

[welder/fitter]

Originally Posted by troy2000

The only explanation, data or testing you're going to get from Loveofsea is, "I built my own boat and it hasn't sunk yet. That means I know more than all the professional designers and NA's in the world, past and present."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Loveofsea Quote: You are taking this WAY too seriously and WAY too personal. All i have done here is maintain my position that a safe boat should never even be capable of diving below the surface no matter WHAT the driver did-PERIOD.

Of course, you've also made many ridiculous statements, such as:

Love of sea quote: Have any of you ever accomplished anything in your lives that wasn't associated with a larger entity than yourselves. Traveling around the world 3 times is great, but unless you did it solo you just tagged along or needed others to tag along with you.... You were only another cog in a wheel larger than yourself.

LOL, what f*cking arrogance!

Brad,
A couple of buddies of mine pull that same "submersible" stunt at the end of our summer vacation at the lake, most years. On the last day of our vacation, we sit on our lawn chairs, drinking beer, and await this same stunt, a stunt that never seems to get old. I remember one year when they had to miss the lake, because they were in jail for stuffing chickens in mailboxes in Saskatchewan.

How about posting a few photos of this boat you designed & built and describe how it puts the mainstream designers to shame? Like another "heretic", you've done your best to spew a lot of BS on others and told some interesting stories, but haven't shown us, nor adequately explained, this great alternative of yours. Now, I'm not suggesting that you haven't designed a better mouse-trap. In fact, as you have no need to make money from your design I'd even recommend it to some fishermen I know in Asia, whom risk their lives in small boats too often, if it appears to be all that you say it is. Btw, if it is possible, could you put up photos in the next page or two of this thread? I'd hate to have to wait another dozen pages, or so, before asking again.

[Perm Stress]

(?!) It is anything, but "traditional dhow".
Fairly contemporary motorboat hull for semi-planing speed.

[gunship]

Originally Posted by Perm Stress

(?!) It is anything, but "traditional dhow".
Fairly contemporary motorboat hull for semi-planing speed.

The OP hasn't shown much knowledge about boats so far so I doubt he could even tell a clipper from a trireme.

[larry larisky]

loveofsea next time you go for underwater photography, please stay put.

[PAR]

This is a long dead thread folks and Loveofsea hasn't posted since last February, anywhere on the forum. Dredging up his ridiculousness wouldn't be a productive effort.

As he failed to prove or even defend, design most often isn't at fault, but operator actions usually are, much like aircraft crashes. We'd probably like to think that it was the equipment or a design flaw that lets us down somehow, but most often it's a much simpler equation, we "no brain ourselves" into a set of events of which nothing good can come out of. It's a well established and very common human failing and it's been studied to a very high degree.

In short, it would be wise to just let this thread die off and start a new thread about the capsize in Bahrain. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, this sort of thing is much more common then in western countries.

[welder/fitter]

Originally Posted by PAR

This is a long dead thread folks and Loveofsea hasn't posted since last February, anywhere on the forum. Dredging up his ridiculousness wouldn't be a productive effort.

As he failed to prove or even defend, design most often isn't at fault, but operator actions usually are, much like aircraft crashes. We'd probably like to think that it was the equipment or a design flaw that lets us down somehow, but most often it's a much simpler equation, we "no brain ourselves" into a set of events of which nothing good can come out of. It's a well established and very common human failing and it's been studied to a very high degree.

In short, it would be wise to just let this thread die off and start a new thread about the capsize in Bahrain. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, this sort of thing is much more common then in western countries.

My apologies! I didn't note the date of Loveofsea's last post. When the thread reappeared in my e-mail, I responded. I wasn't trying to reopen old garbage bags. Again, sorry.

[wimal]

If we just consider your vessel is a box shape one, the BM = BxB/12T = 1.333 m and KB=0.5 m hence KM = 1.8m. Depending on the shape of the vessel these figures would slightly change. The vessel to have minimum initial stability the center gravity should be below 1.65m and I wonder how a two deck vessel could be designed to satisfy this requirement when the vessel is loaded with 80 passengers probably on both decks. As already mentioned in previous discussion, when designing passenger vessel, crowding of passengers to one side should be considered and also heeling due to turning should also be considered and the way I can remember these angles should not be more than 10deg. Probably initial stability may be just positive when the vessel is loaded with fuel and other consumables. The righting moment against inclination may be small because of the 15tonne displacement. As the vessel is at shallow draft heeling moment due to turning can easily exceed the righting moment depending on the operating speed of the vessel

[couch]

Baaa haaa haaaa
This post has been a hoot ... had to register just to comment.

Per the original topic of the post ... the passenger boat (if the one in the pic) that capsized was a piece of $#!t. It was likely not licensed - if it was / did hold a valid certificate, then the Master, owner(s), and governing body should all be held responsible. Sad part is that there are boats out there that are equally as bad and still hold valid certificates. Yes there is blame enough to go around.

As for "Love of Sea" you're a pompous ass and are full of $#!t to boot. Learn when to acknowledge your limitations when it comes to vessel design, construction and operation!

Boats / ships / vessels / autos, planes / bikes / shoes / drill bits / etc. are all designed with an intended purpose and range of operation. If the operator uses the item in a manner that the designer / engineer / architect could not reasonably foresee then the operator must assume the burden of liability. This is why there are now so many WARNING / CAUTION stickers on every product that you purchase - some of which appear to be absolutely baseless other than the fact that the world is full of idiots who continue to act without consideration of the outcomes!

FYI the videos of the small boat(s) sinking / stuffing the bow are intentional acts / stunts. Basically its a "crash stop" manoeuvre. I have a 16' 270 hp Yamaha jetboat for playing about in - this manoeuvre / stunt is a favourite with all of my kids and passengers - ITS A HOOT!!! Was the boat designed with this activity in mind ... likely not ... the fact that it can be done without the boat sinking / capsizing only supports the fact that it was well designed in accordance with the applicable standard.

For the record, I too am a Naval Architect. I have built / rebuilt / modified numerous 12m to 2om GRP vessels. As well, for over 25 years, I have been a partner in the operation of a commercial passenger excursion vessel(s) in the North Atlantic - a nice day for us is likely some of the $hittiest weather most other people on this site cruise in!!! Do I have all the answers ... no. Am I always right ... no. Have I made mistakes ... yes. Did I learn .... yes (most of the time).

Keep up the good work re the forum.

[PAR]

Originally Posted by couch

Did I learn .... yes (most of the time).

Sounds like you learn about the same as me, welcome aboard . . .

Originally Posted by couch

Baaa haaa haaaa
This post has been a hoot ... had to register just to comment.



Boats / ships / vessels / autos, planes / bikes / shoes / drill bits / etc. are all designed with an intended purpose and range of operation. If the operator uses the item in a manner that the designer / engineer / architect could not reasonably foresee then the operator must assume the burden of liability. This is why there are now so many WARNING / CAUTION stickers on every product that you purchase - some of which appear to be absolutely baseless other than the fact that the world is full of idiots who continue to act without consideration of the outcomes!

Well, lets try, too many seem to know more than we....

[ancient kayaker]

Originally Posted by PAR

This is a long dead thread folks and Loveofsea hasn't posted since last February, anywhere on the forum ...

- neither has Sachi, the originator of the thread. I hope he got what he wanted, and Loveofsea got what he deserved. A Merry Christmas to all!

[Brian@BNE]

Well Sachi did say 'my boat....' at the beginning. I'm not sure he got what he wanted, but if the boat in post #207 is his, he had the mods done, and he put that many people that high above the water on that 4m beam, then lets hope that the reason he hasn't posted for a long time is that he is one of the people in jail.

Best part of thread was learning lesson about jumping onto a boat in a developing country during a holiday. Ie just don't do it unless you can find a sticker that says 'Designed by Alik' or someone else equally competent.

[Tad]

Originally Posted by Brian@BNE

Best part of thread was learning lesson about jumping onto a boat in a developing country during a holiday. Ie just don't do it unless you can find a sticker that says 'Designed by Alik' or someone else equally competent.

I'm afraid these sorts of problems are not limited to so called "developing" countries.....look around.......