Swain BS_36 Stability curve

Indeed.

However, you simply fail to understand what it is you’re quoting. A quote from the rules is simple that, just a quote. It is NOT repeat not , since as many times as it takes….not proof of any compliance.

As many times as it takes #258:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/stability/swain-bs_36-stability-curve-37070-18.html#post456690

Please provide the Documented Evidence. That satisfies their

You must provide the proof of compliance otherwise your statement that a BS 36” boat satisfies and passes ABS is false and a lie.

Either it passes or it does not

If it passes, please provide the signed dated and stamped letter from ABS rules stating as such.

PS>

Had another wannbie designer claiming the same before. Saying his poor detail designs passes LR rules:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/metal-boat-building/metal-frame-detail-28371.html

When confronted to supply documented evidence that it is approved by LR....same ..a deafening silence.

PPS....

In case you're wondering what an approval letter looks like since you cannot produce one to back up your claim, here's two as an example (clients details removed):

 

Ditto

 

BentJack

Weld a 45 degree rail to the front of your car and drive into a low concrete wall.........................It simply rides up on the rail. That's how sump guards work on rocks on the trail.

That's what the stem is doing, the boat ( from a reliable witness who was there ) rode up on it's stem. In fact it's the most benign way of experiencing a collision in small raked stem steel hull. It would be surprising if it suffered other than scratching. But you use it to imply uncommon strength which it doesn't.

As for the reef tale, get real......if there was only a small dent there was only a low impact collision. It would be more impressive if it was mangled beyond recognition but still held together.

The AVS of your boats from Tad Roberts study is not particularly offshore suitable for the size of the boat. I'd still like to see an inclining test though.

If you start including a sealed mast then you can also do that for any boat you compare it with, it's always an option to foam fill a mast. Even mast head floats and inflatable bags were experimented with but in a violent inversion you lose the mast 9 times out of 10.

Wynand
I agree, but I can't help myself.

 

Go check Tad's post #141

Is someone suggesting that every time a boat hits something, like a barge , the headlines in the Vancouver sun read "Boat hits barge and nothing happens." Boy, most journalists are dying to get their hands on such a career building scoop!
Are you suggesting that every time a boat hits something, it is documented, and covered by the media. Given the amount of debris floating in the strait, and the number of times boats hit it, there must be a huge field of warehouses somewhere, to accommodate all the documentation. That would be a good place for you to start your search for evidence.
Where can I find all this documentation? What kind of documentation are you looking for?

Perhaps you can also tell me where I can see Tad designs in Northern Georgia Strait. I see all kinds of BS designs, everywhere I go, but have yet to see a Tad design.
Do the numbers of happy owners indicate success of a design?
Perhaps you can also give us a list of the small steel sailing craft you have designed, and, or ,built and where we can all see them, as well as a list of the offshore passages they have made, and the extreme conditions they have survived. Could you also give us a list of the books and articles their owners have written about their adventures, in your designs.
Thanks.

 

Some have caught a sharp corner of a barge, 6 inches off the centerline, at hull speed, without damage.
How many boats could be pound across 300 yards of reef ,without damage? There was big enough surf to move it that far ,which must have been considerable. One foot waves wouldn't do it.
It takes more that "low impact" to put a dent in half inch plate, with 4500 lbs of lead poured over it.
Even the Waskazoo could be mangled beyond recognition, after 8 hours of abuse, with the most abysmal welding imaginable, without breaking any of them. That is the case with most small steel boats.
While a steel mast is far less likely to be lost in a rollover, I believe any offshore boat should have it's mast sealed. ( makes it much quieter too.)
As I pointed out, an inclining test which doesn't incline to 180 degrees, says nothing about AVS , but is only initial stability , often gained at the expense of ultimate stability, when gained by excessive beam . Marchage points this out.
Tad's post 141 says a lot more.

 

Here I think you are talking some sense. The benefits of a tough hard construction material allow glancing blows and a thump on the bottom with relative immunity.

As for the reef tale, if the only part of the boat to receive a dent was the bottom of the keel then maybe that's a clue as to the depth of water over the reef at the time !

 

Does that rubbish never end ? The bullshitter sees ******** designs everywhere?

Is this the "BS can claim what he wants" Forum ?

Swain you are a liar!

Your floating scrap is nowhere well respected, and never did a builder save a penny tacking your worthless floatsam together. Never one of them sailed safe and comfortable on board one of your junk boats! NEVER ! ! !

Your opponents on the other hand are well known, well respected and well admitted members of the international scene.

Not that this does mean much

it says all.

Hägar
the
Horrible

edited

You waste your time Mike, and you know that, cause you are one of the mentioned.

 

Yes I'd have to agree.

Here's a pic of a steel chine boat I looked at a couple of years ago. The design is from a man BS approves of, not mentioning names because I don't think it really matters.

The story I got was, the owner was single-handing it north up the NSW coast and went to sleep. The boat ended up on the shore on its port side, I don't know if it was sand or rock. The hull was dented along the chine but was intact, pulled off and sailed off. I have no idea about swell conditions etc.

Now IMO this was not particularly well built. It was a nice building job, the welding was done well, but there wasn't enough of it where it was needed and some of the choices for steel reinforcing was distinctly odd. The longitudinals were 12x12 square bar set 'diamond-wise' (ie point up/down). The frames were 50x5 flat bar and weren't strongly welded to the skin and as the picture shows, not at all really between the chine and the first of the bottom plate longs. IIRC the hull plate was 3mm. All in all this was pretty weak construction yet it withstood a pretty hard grounding and was sailed off.

The construction of the BS 36 is even weaker except that the plate is 5mm thick. We've thrashed this conclusion to death in the other 2 threads so as far as I'm concerned it's a given unless decent numeric data is forthcoming (probably about the same time as the next millenium on past form).

My conclusion is that if you're going to subject your boat to abuse, steel is the best medium for the hull. Even a weak steel hull will withstand some quite severe battering before failure. Therefore anecdotal tales of BS designs surviving encounters with reefs etc say a lot about the strength of steel but not necessarily much about the design itself, as other boats of different construction have also survived severe impacts.

PDW

 

Stirring up again Brent... It's YOU who is dumping **** loads of this undocumented "evidence" here so it's YOU who should dig after documentation.. Unable to do so your "evidence" is not worth crap.

 

I told you guys about arguing with a fool

Here is a pic from my webpage; Accordingly to an article published this particular boat landed about 400m (about 1330ft) onto a real reef during a night storm at high tide. She sat there for two weeks taking a pounding at every high tide until a freighter came to the rescue and PULLED the boat of the reef.
Only the rudder took a bit of a beating but the boat was sailed to port with jury rudder but the boat suffered no structural damage...

Since BS Jack is in the habit of destructive derbies etc, I doubt it if his silly sardine tin construction design would have survived only the stranding, let alone the two week pounding it took and the 400m drag across that reef to deep water.
One thing making claims about hitting a reef and only a small dent on bottom of keel as evidence and as Mike pointed out, that showed the depth of water during that incident above the reef but totally different kettle of fish surviving a real stranding of a reef.

BTW BS Jack, many GRP boats survived after being T boned by larger steel craft and that are only plastic boats. Pound for pound, smaller steel boats are stronger than their larger cousins.

PS: Since the bulk of BS designs are found in and around BC Canada where the waters are really placid, I would love to see his boats sailing the notorious east coast waters of South Africa regularly on a bad day, not to mention the waters around the Cape and our west coast aka skeleton coast for a reason.
This is the very reason you will not find this BS tin cans build here....

 

I am stupid to get into this, and sorry for the bit off-topic comment, but ...

In short, you argue that if you happen to survive a crash it proves you to be indestructible, right? So, if your car happens to survive a side-on collision with a truck at low speed would you be ready to give it a second go? The car has just proven itself incredibly strong so there should be little at risk?

Further, surviving driving off the road at 120km/h with minor scratches while your car was totalled proves you to be indestructibe, so why not give it a second go? Sell tickets to turn profit over the value of the right. I survived such a car accident and wouldn't try it the second time but consider myself very lucky there.

 

Amen. I went off a freeway at 70 mph on a motorcycle, bounced four times on my way down a rocky hillside, spent most of the night crawling back up the hill -- and the only permanent damage is a pin in my ankle that I could've had removed after I healed up.

I called the towing company that collected my bike, to see if anything was salvageable. The counter guy told me, "dude, we didn't pick your bike up; we raked it up."

So that's proof positive I'm indestructible. Right?

 

Brent this is incorrect, and you are confusing some issues. I think You have had this wrong before and had it explained to you before.

In this case the reason you would do an inclining tests along with an ascertained displacement is to check the location of the vertical centre of gravity.

 

Just for clarification, was the barge at Gibsons the one that went down in Skookumchuk Narrows? Along with the tug pulling her?

Look, Brent, a lot of people have built to your drawings because you've sold it as something spectacular. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. You know that several builders have questioned the tender nature of your design, mentioning first reefs at less than 20knots.

Comparing your designs with Tad's is a bit beyond rational thought though, don't you think? In your wildest dreams you do not have the knowledge to do more than guess at the specs for your own drawings. I've seen your drawings and a miniscule amount of Tad's design & stability work & am amazed - and amused - that your ego could stretch that far. Well, if I see any of your "designs" down here in Newport Beach, or when I'm in SanFran I'll be sure to ask the owner(s) what their impressions are.

 

All the paint was pounded of the Viski , below the waterline, and there was a huge white trough in the reef where the boat pounded across it. Something must have touched the hull and the reef.
Most BS 36 footers have a doubler plate welded along the chine, taking the thickness there to just under half inch . Had the boat in the photo had this, it would have probably never been dented. Viski had these doublers inside.
When any single keeler lays down on a reef, the only two places that touch are the chine and the keel. Doesn't hurt anything to go overkill on the doublers there.