How Do Things Work In This Industry??

In the UK anyone can call themselves a naval architect and also a landscape architect. Anyone.

However, if you're referring to "professional" naval architects, that is a whole different matter. Since one must be a Chartered engineer (C.Eng.) one must also be a member and i mean full member, not someone who has joined and gets the magazines calls themselves a 'member' when they are companion members etc, of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. (RINA). They shall ahve MRINA after their name and C.Eng....if they don't... .

To get to this position, after taking their degree, can take approx 7years minimum of on the job training; this is gauged and then reviewed by a "tutor" to ensure one has the prerequisite training in many disciplines and to the correct 'level'. Unless one is lucky to be on a C.Eng registered training program, large companies!!...in which case can take a minimum of 4 years....fast track style!

So, if joe bloggs asks a naval architect to design a boat he can
1) ask anyone
or
2) ask a professional.

How does joe know the difference between the two?..he asks. If he doesn't ask the right question....#1, will evade and give the "impression" they are.

As for Apex/Richard's background....that is for him to offer.

 

Checking my post I see you are right, I was talking about the language only while thinking and meaning the country as well.

 

IF someone simply wants to make "money" in the marine business , it is the same as everywhere else.

The MIDDLEMAN , has the least risk and frequently largest percentage of the profits per item sold.

The "Picnic Boat " assembler has a hard time when the next fad is cigarette go fasts.

The middleman simply makes a phone call and restocks his inventory.

FF

 

@apex1

an architect gets all the education to actually calculate the statics... you are right there...

BUT - he is by no way allowed to do it! the static needs to be done by a legally qualified and certified engineer... at least it needs to be checked and varified for correctness by one of those!

architects are of course able to get this certification as well but there are very few out there who actually doing so... they are very much focused on designing and less on number crunching...
statics and all the proper calculatuions are usually done by trained staticists (or whatever they are called in english) - Statiker in german - having a certification as civil engineer...
no architect is allowed to errect a building without the 'certification' from one of those civil engineers... and their background is very often so called 'Tiefbau' - street-, damm-, bridges-construction and such like...
trust me on that because i graduated in 'Tiefbau'...

and there is the big difference i see to boat building... one can legally do the design AND all the scantling calculation in unisono which is not the case in the house-building industry... or at least very, very seldom...

 

曾经是在求变，而今是在求安。

 

ok...

 

Google translation is your friend. Maybe sort of...

 

There is a difference between a design and a proven design. The same with designers. That effects how people make their money.

There is also the theory of form and function and which follows what. I don't think there are too many naval or land architects that are exceptionally good at both ends of form and function, design and engineering. I think two different parts of the brain are used for the two lines of work and people lean towards one or the other. it is also very helpful if you are very good at one side of the equation, that you have enough understanding of the other side to have a rough idea of what's possible. So I think it's not cut and dried as to one having to know it all and being able to do it all. Some can, and some think they can. Just because you can design something and engineer it to work doesn't mean it's a good design or that it's good engineering. To combine good design and good engineering usually requires teamwork.

 

Thanks for your contribution.
You know (and I mentioned it above) there are different approaches in several EU countries. In Germany (I think it is similar in Austria) you can become a Architect by studying the more artificial side of Architecture mainly, and just learning the basics of statics and engineering. Or you can do vice versa!
In the former case, you´re not allowed to build without structural engineering added by third parties. But you can name yourself Architect.
In the latter case, you are allowed to do the whole building yourself and you can name yourself a engineer, but not a Architect! Only membership in the boards of Architects gives you permission to do so! But thats nothing but a membership in a "club" and requires no additional education.
So, nothing is easy.........
And (just to play with the words) you can trust me, I´m in the construction business for 42 years now and employed nearly hundred Architects and engineers. aber einen Hochbau würde ich nicht mit einem Tiefbauingenieur durchziehen...
In boatbuilding things are not much different, just the regulations are not as strict and the terms differ.

Regards
Richard

 

As you say, there's the old saw about form following function. I think it's especially true in boats. If someone sets out to design a boat that works well, it's surprising how often it also turns out to be beautiful. Maybe that's just because our tastes are conditioned by a few thousand years of appreciating practicality, but I think there's more to it than that. I think form and function are inextricably intertwined with aesthetics.

It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.

--Louis Sullivan, American Architect

 

This is a womans shoe. It works for me.

 

You have strange dressing habits mate!

But a good taste............

 

I disagree about boats looking beautiful if form follows function. I know several that can design quite clever and efficient craft, some with hardly a line out of place for it's purpose, but they're also some of the ugliest things floating, because the designer doesn't have the "style" to make them palatable. Many of the Bolger boxes are classic examples of this, children only a mother could love.

The great designers are regarded as greats because they're work not only preformed well, but also looked good doing it. This is talent and has nothing to do with form following function, though in many cases it does appear as such.

 

Whoops. What I meant was...