A cape Horn vessel

When a piece of steel is deliverd , it is as fair as it will ever get. The more you do to it ,the more chance of distortion you get. Thus the less you can do to it in getting it into a hull shape, the fairer it will be. The lower the number of seams, cutting and welding you do, and the bigger the pieces you use, the fairer it will be. The thicker the plate, the fairer it wil be.
If you hit a sharp rock, or floating container , and it hits next to a frame, the odds of a hole being punched in increase, the greater the number of hard spots against the hull skin there are. The thicker plate of a frameles hull ,for the same weight ,is also an advantage. Thus frameless hulls are far more seaworthy.

 

are you saying welded steel hulls are fairer than wooden hulls

 

Brent,

when will you ever stop bothering us with that drivel............?

Are you just unwilling to accept there are more valid and proven methods of boatbuilding than yours? Or are you unable?

 

Ho, ho, with that Peter we will have a very long rambling post from Brent about how wooden boat are bad. He will go on with 1200 words at least of hysterical blasting

He is unable Richard, since he doesn't know how to design and built differently. So he think the world of boatbuilding should turn around his:
origami, orisalami, oricrappy, orinonsense, orinosoriginal, oriboring, orinuts, and any ori you can find.

Ori means folding, so Brent fold you crap.

Daniel

 

First paragrah I think means flat surfaces are fair but you could end up building a box that is not pleasing to the eye, a thing of beauty is more important to some people.

As I understand the second paragraph a frameless steel hull is more flexible and able to take collision damage better than a framed hull in steel, wood or fibreglass that can split, a good point I suppose but again possibly not the whole consideration.

 

oh dear, i did not realise

 

When a piece of steel is deliverd , it is as fair as it will ever get. The more you do to it ,the more chance of distortion you get. Thus the less you can do to it in getting it into a hull shape, the fairer it will be. The lower the number of seams, cutting and welding you do, and the bigger the pieces you use, the fairer it will be. The thicker the plate, the fairer it wil be.
quote
my father taught me this 40 years ago,
everyone knows this,
are you saying you have never used filler on a steel hull

 

Nah he just means the more you work it the more it crinkles. Fairing compounds will still getcha a fair hull.

Nah he means that a frameless steel hull will stove way in with a collision thereby disipating the engery. A framed steel hull will possibly under the right circumstance tear along a frame. More than likely the collision will put a small dend in rather than stove in the hull.

 

frames

When you use fairing compounds, you have to worry about hitting things and having it fall off, which defeats the main advantage of having a worry free steel hull in the first place.
I've never had to use any fairing compounds on any of my hulls. They are as fair as any wooden or fibreglass hull, and just as pleasing to the eye, as anyone who has seen them can testify.
Several have hit rocks doing hull speed, a foot or so off the centreline, where there is no framing. They have simply bounced off. How often are you going to hit anything harder than a rock, doing faster than hull speed? Had there been frames there, they would have dented and possibly holed.
Yes, wood is the poorest boatbuilding material ever used, with the greatest number of liabilities, the greatest complexity and most labour intensive construction ever used, and the flimsiest.

 

Now I am a metallurgist who attended the top steel biased school in the USA and I cannot say that steel is king in boats under about 100' and in boats under 40 wood is a damn good medium.

In a 40' boat the boat would have to be excessively heavy to be frameless. If heavy is what you want and you are willing to pay the penalty, go for it. For myself, aluminum beats steel in recreational boats.

Now I could make a good argument for steel but I would have to kid myself to do so.

 

I'm not making an argument either way on this just observations on my own experience. I own a steel riveted Dutch Luxemotor built 1920, I'm also involved with other old dutch barges, modern replica welded frameless barges and Thames barges both riveted steel and more common wooden Thames barges. These range from 90' down to 45'.

The weight of the older barges is very similar for wood or steel but the wood is very thick with a large keelson taking up even more internal space and it all requires constant and expensive maintenance. They often have iron deck frames to reduce the bulk of wood. Even small damage can mean extensive work.

Steel or iron on the other hand has more internal space and is much more easily maintained and as these are all primarily commercial vessels the steel holds up to getting knocked about much better and are more easily knock out and welded up locally.

The modern barges are often frameless or with some framing, being stiffened with bulkheads and built in tanks etc. I can see the benefit of bouncing off collision objects. In the past these haven't been the best looking vessels but they are getting better. They just don't often have the nice rounded lines of the Dutch or even the more angular Thames barges.

I'm not aware of any new wooden barges being built but I've been helping out with the complete rebuild of the SB Dawn, this has cost I believe around £750,000 and still more is needed so wood is not cheap!

I once had a 36' ships steel lifeboat converted to a cruiser, it was thin but lasted a long time from the SS Empire Pride. The Dutch also used to build steel barge dinghies, they were heavy but very solid and could withstand being used as fenders! I know even the well respected Dutch steel boats use filler!

In my small boat fleet the wooden boats are much more expensive and time consuming to maintain but they look the best. The easiest to maintain are the plastic and ferro and they also look good with no restrictions on shape. The ferro is heavy but so strong and basic to maintain.

Given a choice I would go with steel or ferro.

 

Captain littlelegs your post is very much along the lines that I would use for justifying steel over wood in small vessels. The commercial end of the argument also adds a touch. I would also have my head in the sand when it comes to private yachts and amateur built boats. The agrument completely ignores modern building technique for wood and focuses on wood's weaknesses while totally ignoring steels inherent glaring weaknesses in smaller vessels.

All materials have their weaknesses and strength and its always a balance of compromises that ultimately determines the best material for the build. I can also see compromises where I would use steel in vessels under 100 ft.

 

Could you back that?
I don't think you can't, since I discovered something interresting: you are not a boat builder, and your 40 years of boatbuilding is just a lie.
As for designer, well everybody can dream.
Daniel

 

What utter nonsense! As usual once you open your mouth.

There is NO perfect boatbuilding material, as there is NO perfect building method.
In our professional world we have to live with severe compromises every day.

In your world, on cloud #7 it might be different.

Brent stay at your campfire with your origami community and be celebrated as their Guru, do´nt bother with pro´s.

Regards
Richard

 

Dutch waters are full of steel boats of all shapes and sizes.

There was a thread about steel dinghies a while ago:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/metal-boat-building/steel-dinghies-8856.html

As of filler, it depends on couple of things, most important how complex is the hull shape and how perfect finish must be.

Dutch builders built many classic, wineglass shapes with a top quality, shiny finish. For that sort of work filler is unavoidable. But more modern, simpler multi-chine shapes can usually be done without filler.