Wharram Tiki wrecked in Thailand

Jeff, I have indeed posted some cutting remarks but to accuse me of flinginging insults around is a bit much.

I have exchanged insults with RB and all my cutting comments have targeted him specifically and only him.

RB however has freely exchanged insults with many posters on this thread.

My post that you removed at the bequest of Alik accused no one of any thing, it was a statement that RB confirmed on his own Blog and Creed O'Hanlon had confirmed on his. If the participants in the building of this boat didn't know what was happening then who the hell does? Refer to Angilique's post if in doubt.

It is all well and good for some participants to now want to distance themselves from events, but not at the expense of free speech.

I realise that litigation in the US is a growth industry, for some even a job description so I can see why you may be gun shy when it comes to recieving threats of this nature.

Empty bluffs seem to pay dividends!

 

RB's blog

This is not CCOH's blog but RB's. If it is not true* then you should talk to RB.

* "he (CCOH) and I (RB) worked with A... N... to redraw the hull lines to better suit strip-planking"

RB's old blog (http://raoulbianchetti.blogspot.com/) was written by CCOH, commissioned by RB. That blog is removed and replaced by this blog (http://*****-**********.blogspot.com/). So talk to RB if it is not correct.

Regards, Angélique.

 

Stick to the plans!

Another not build as per plans Wharram was wrecked in January 2009.

Post #1: "the solid douglas fir beams 'snapped like toothpicks' in the swell"

The solid douglas fir beams of that boat should be: Post #2 "stacked laminations of timber"

Post #28: "The crossbeams failed down a line where they had been butt jointed rather than the laminates placed on top of each other and the overall width of the vessel was several feet wider then spec, the rig taller and there was no triangulation of the load under the mast."

Post #31: "Butt joined means the timber was laminated end on end ..... "

Well, see the thread for yourself....

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91114

So there was nothing wrong with the original design but the vessel broke down due to bad modifications that even further were badly built. Just like the heavily modified and badly built RB T38 that washed ashore.

Regards, Angélique.

 

In Defense of Alik

I could not really be called a friend of Alik, although I have had some interactions with him.

He is a professional naval architect and has a good reputation in Thailand and other countries. There are a number of his designs that have been successfully built by a number of builders and have happy customers. One example would be the power catamaran dive boat that Alik designed and was built by AusThai. This is highly regarded in the area.

It seems that RB chose to use Alik's services after his own attempts at design were not successful - hence Alik's comments that he was not involved in the earlier boats. You cannot blame him wanting to protect his reputation.

Alik has no direct control over the builder, although I know that he does try and visit the yard during the build as a courtesy. RB appears to use Alik's reputation as a naval architect to support RBs business but the build is RB's responsibility not Alik's.

I cannot believe that Alik would ever design the beam troughs to be built as on Warren's Tiki 38 (the follow up to the wrecked boat) and he clearly states he was not involved. Irrespective of what ***** puts on his blog I would believe Alik. The trough build does not meet any known structural criteria and was purely cosmetic. This is the responsibility of the builder.

The worrying part is that no one would ever have known about the construction had Warren not decided to check. The boat would probably have been lost in the first big storm; along with Warren.

The warning to potential customers is clear.

 

"Pony Up"

I do not accept that my original post was incorrect. May I suggest that you take a refresher course in English comprehension; I stated that; "If what you are saying is in fact true then I accept your explanation" The emphasis here is on the word "IF" and a very big "IF" at that, this is not an admission that I was wrong, are you serious?

Also I did not make or refer to any defamatory remarks. I clearly prefaced my comments by stating that I was referring to material I had read, this material is freely available in the public domain, extracts of which have since been posted by other contributors to this thread.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach and “pony up” yourself instead of defending someone who is trying to distance themselves from a project that went sour.

 

Tomorrow I will write in my 'freely available' blog that Tiki was designed by Bruce Farr - would You quote it as well?

If You have any proofs (drawings, design agreements, invoices) post it here. If You want to discuss something - welcome to my office, I will show how design contract and design set from AMD looks. Otherwise it is not free speech but gossips of anonimous Internet-bubblers. These insinuations should be removed as they present no sence or facts. I really appreciate moderators' help on this, for sure moderators also care about reputation of this valuable resource.

Again: third party blogs and websites do not represent my job or our company job. We can not control the webspace or monitor private blogs. At any doubt please send inquiry, we will provide information on request.

Again: I clearly wrote to Creed in 2007(!) that he is not authorized to reference us and our projects in his blog. He is not even our customer! See my email posted before. We will require corrections from RB (I didn't know they have new blog).

Finally, I wish all participants to stop this useless guesswork, abandon the computers and go do some boating. So did I today, high tide, good time for fishing.

 

So what you are saying is that ***** **********'s Blog is the gossip of an internet bubbler?

 

Herbalife. No need to supply plans. Neither my boat or Creeds was any more a composite boat than a standard Wharram.

The only deviation from the original Wharram plans in the case of my boat was to be limited to the hulls which were to be built of strip planking instead of plywood.

The Nida-core was approved to be used in non structural areas and in places where Wharrams use a sandwich construction.

I did request that the decks had an increased camber like Creeds decks as I thought that they looked better than the Wharram design which was a bit flatter. Unfortunately even though this was part of the initial understanding either ***** or his workers misunderstood and they built the decks and cabin tops off the Wharram plans...except that they forgot to put the same degree of camber in the cabin tops as provided for in the plans so the net result is that they are almost flat and the headroom is reduced by 40mm as a result.

I was not happy about that because not only did I not get the increased camber as Creed did but I didn't even get the same amount as the Wharram plans call for.

So, with regard to plans there are none other than the Wharram plans themselves. ***** told me before I signed the contract that the hulls had been designed professionally by Albert and that is what gave me confidence to go ahead...he showed me the 3D renderings by Albert. But, beyond the hull modification everything else was to be as per the Wharram plans.

All other changes I my boat have been thought up by ***** with no consultation with me...and as far as I understand no further consultation with Albert.

One of the glaring examples of one of Raouls unapproved modifications (other than my beam troughs) are the beams themselves which are 100mm less in depth than the plans call for. ***** claims that they are lighter and stronger but is unable to provide any calculations so I am not taking any chances...I am laminating an extra 2 x 25mm lengths of timber to the beams top and bottom and reglassing.

Warren Matthews

 

Sorry, but seems it is You
In blog and web RB states that Tiki38 is Wharram Design. Maybe I missed something?

 

nobody seen the drawings

Warren, please don't take it personal, but have You ever been to our office, have You ever seen any plans of this boat developed by us? Have I ever met You? I also have bunch of handsketches made for potential customers (yes, and for Creed also) - why don't You build boats from them?

That's amazing - nobody have ever seen the drawings, but everyone sure we designed it!

 

Alik. I stated what was presented to me and I accepted it in good faith as I had no cause to think otherwise at the time.

I repeat. Before I went to contract ***** showed me the 3D renderings of the hulls only and told me they were done by you. He went to great lengths to point out some of the deficiences in the Wharram hull drawings.

I did not deem it necessary to go to visit your office to ask you directly to verify what I had been told by ***** particuarly as it was common knowledge that ***** was a major customer of yours. I operate in a business world in which I expect a degree of ethics and trust and as such I do not cross reference everything I am told. I trust someone until I have cause not to, and in this case and at that time I could not see what upside there was for ***** lying to me.

If those 3D renderings were not done by you then and you should take that issue up with *****...and thus prove you did not do them. Don't waste you time trying to take a cheap shot at me by suggesting that I build a boat from a bunch of sketches.

Quite frankly I don't give a damn who did the hull drawings. The hulls on my boat are fine and if you look at my blog at www.naturalhigh-adventures.com I have never said anything to the contrary. It is the other parts of the boat that are problematic.

 

At present, we deal with about 20 builders worldwide.

But actually You are, Warren! Nothing personal, but just look at reality. You can not just change hull shape and material, but leave all design as it was. Sometimes we change hull length by 100mm, displacement by 100kg or deadrise by 5 degree - and we already have to re-work all scantlings!

Ask any expert in this forum - they will confirm.

 

Alik, the only comment that I have posted regarding you, is to say that according to an article I read there appears to be collaboration between Creed O’Hanlon the client, RB Power & Sailing the builder and naval architect.

I have not posted extracts from the article I read; therefore you do not know what I read. You may make assumptions about what I read but that is not sufficient reason to go squealing to the moderator.

You are free to interpret the word collaboration anyway you like; you do not know what I read unless you are claiming to be a clairvoyant.

Subsequent postings by other reader’s of this thread quote extracts from the builder ***** **********’s Blog “ From the Jungle to the Gulf” where he clearly states that he was involved with the project.

http://*****-**********.blogspot.com...catamaran.html

He disputes this; if he feels comfortable with that, then that is clearly a matter for him!

 

What You have read? Where? Who said that? If You are talking about private blogs of Creed and *****, then a) both of them were managed by Creed b) it was removed on our request long time ago as it was not true.

Yes, it is a matter for me as we never designed the boat in question.

Are You trying to convince me that I have designed that boat? Then go to the first page of this thread and re-read the title - Wharram Tiki wrecked in Thailand...
I am not going to discuss it with You or Robert anymore, sorry.

 

"both of them were managed by Creed"

Sorry that is " hear say" what evidence do you have?

No! I am not saying you designed this boat or trying to convince you you did. As I said before I don't have a personal opinion, others who were involved with you do.