Origami steel yacht construction

Discussion in 'Metal Boat Building' started by origamiboats, Nov 30, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TomThumb28
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 21
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 93
    Location: Canada

    TomThumb28 Junior Member

    I think we have a misunderstanding here. I was talking about a hypothetical Brent boat not your personal boat. "That tall" was referring to the bermuda rig as designed. You can't replace a stayed mast with a freestanding one of the same height, of the same material, with the same strength without massively increasing the weight. I know you CAN build a junk rig with a steel mast, obviously it would have to be much shorter than a bermuda rig with equivalent area.

    Have you seen the analogies Brent uses? :p
  2. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    No wardd, I would say the opposite!

    The method, which is not BS´s method btw., is and was discussed here to the very end and in general consensus being a valid one to some extend.

    The person is making these discussions senseless by drivelling them down to anecdotal tales and stories.

    Not the method was criticized, but the false arguments, lies and exaggerations of the person promoting it. Boatbuilders, Homebuilders, Welders, Boilermakers, Na´s, Designers, Engineers and even skilled Amateurs, have proven the person wrong, not the system. And ALL received insults, attacks and negative feedback.

    When one is claiming to be the only one on earth with a valid recipe (which in itself is already insane), he has to proove all others wrong, or leave the scene.

    In this case, BS has attacked everyone asking for the proof. He instead, has proven on many, many occasions that he himself does not understand the religion he promotes.
    It is therefore mute to discuss the religion any further in his presence.

    Ban the person, then lets go ahead discussing methods!

    That was a nice example how to circumnavigate the main topic here Jeff.

    As mentioned several times now, the pointage is not the problem we have with BS!
    Revenue and value of our Forum was the point, as Ad Hoc so eloquently expressed.


    btw, I am not bothered, just felt it was unnecessary.
  3. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    I agree, and please read my post they goes in your direction. Did you see ONE technical answer from Brent on 101 naval architecture, the BM? the most important point, without a proper answer no dialogue is possible.
    that the problem Wardd, Brent put the thread personally so it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a real discussion.
    Not because of us Wardd, not us. That the sickness of Brent, to make belief.
    He do the same with his plan (I can prove it since he do not know what is BM) he sell paper, DANGEROUS paper. For money.
    Would you like to have a friend drowning because of a bad design. No of course.
    Plenty of good people wanted to exchange with him, read the thread with attention, he refused flatly.
    Don't put the fault on us, it's wrong, sorry

    Please I urge you to read my last post, and you will understand why I think Brent do not belong here. It is very technical, nothing to do with anything else.
    And make no mistake, HE HIS NOT AN UNDERDOG. To bee one you have to know your 101 and from that go on a different path.
    Some naval architect are underdog and they are real and knowledgeable.
    Putting Brent at this level is insulting for them.
    (I worked for one of these real genius)
    PS added: (I said BM which is Buoyancy/transverse metacenter, it is GM gravity/transverse metacenter, but this is not important since the former has to be calculated to have the latter, thing that Brent do not know and never answered. If he answered correctly he had to gave automatically the BM before finding is GM. So my difference is mote since linked. Just to be precise)
  4. bearflag
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 227
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 195
    Location: Thousand Oaks, California

    bearflag Inventor/Fabricator

    Some of us can only give negative feedback so often. :)

    System limits us, wants us to spread the love around etc.
  5. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,589
    Likes: 125, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    You have good point. Looking back what the man has to say..
    "I pulled the hull" 581 times (including quotes) :p

    A few decades ago when pc:s were young breed there was a program called "BS generator". It produced speeches of any subject you wanted to without any meaning in the sentences.. but it sounded like it had some sense.. if you wasn't really listening..
  6. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    We have a similar system here Teddy.

    Just open a thread with the terms "metal", "steel", or "boatbuilding methods" in the title!

    Immediately the "BS generator" generates meaningless content!

  7. Robbo
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 25
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1
    Location: WA

    Robbo Junior Member

    Ive read a fair bit of this forum (not all, I have a life!)
    Can anyone tell me where this started from-in that how many (or any) of BS's vessels/designs have sunk or suffered structural failure?
    Where did this start from?
  8. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    I understand you have a life!
    The point is not the failure (but it will come to that unfortunately for the people on the boat) the point is the following if you read all the thread:
    Brent said that his design are the only one valuable, all other are a waste of time and money.
    He said naval architect are over charging clients for they own profit.
    So we ask him to prove that.
    I asked him SEVERAL TIME to tell us what is the GM of his boat and ALL the calculation backing the number.
    Without knowing that you do not know your design thus what you are selling.
    But boy he insulted us personally, to avoid any technical confrontation.
    And when he answer let say about steel, he goes on for so long with terms chosen in Wikipedia, that for an uninformed person can be very confusing, since he explain...........nothing. That is the technique that make you ask your question.
    he pretend that his boat are safe at 170 degree. It is not possible, and do not back this number. And he can't since he doesn't know the first rule of stability, the GM.
    He deceives and lie.
    And that is the point.
    He attack personally the professionals to hide his shortcoming.
    Since he is payed for his plan, he commit fraud, and should not be here.
    WE OFFERS to help him countless of time, each time he returned with insult, innuendos and stories about his cruising.

    So that is not an answer for a man who declare that his design are the only one valuable, ALL the other design are bad and the yachting comunity is a bunch of crooks. (I don't exaggerate, just read the posts)


    I am like you, I have a life. But I don't like to be taken hostage by someone who jump on you anytime you post on steel related, or tell lies on his products, and use the forum as a propaganda platform for selling his product.

    I want to be comfortable in the forum. And yes to exchange ideas on the forum is part of my life.

    One reverend Jones is enough, we know the end.

  9. Wynand N
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 1,260
    Likes: 148, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1806
    Location: South Africa

    Wynand N Retired Steelboatbuilder

  10. Lampy08
    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 31
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 11
    Location: west coast canada

    Lampy08 Junior Member

    Hi Robo, I was wondering about the same thing, so I looked up Brent Swain's boats track record. Couldn't find a single case where catastrophic failure had occurred with the exception on one fellow who didn't build to the designers specs. All of the owner/builders of Brent's boats who responded were happy with the boat although some had move onto bigger ones. Two of them told me that they really appreciated his coming and helping tack it together, and his enthusiasm was an inspiration to help them finish. There are few of his boats available second hand and they do not depreciate any more than any other boat. I recommend you buy his book even if you decide to build some one else’s plan there is some good common sense advice for a novice builder.
    Having said that do read the post and the criticisms. Some of the points brought up are legitimate and you should consider them if you are going to build a Bent Swain designs. It would take very little to address their concerns.
    1 person likes this.
  11. rugludallur
    Joined: Jan 2006
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 249
    Location: Iceland

    rugludallur Rugludallur

    Hi Brent,

    I was waiting for you to post today.


  12. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,589
    Likes: 125, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    It looks smth like a boat, and it might be a boat if constructed properly, but nobody knows the limits bcs it's not designed at all.. just pulled together as BS says.
  13. Brent Swain
    Joined: Mar 2002
    Posts: 951
    Likes: 35, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -12
    Location: British Columbia

    Brent Swain Member

    The bottom line on any design is how she sails and have there been any serious failures. Anything else is far lss relevant. Best get this info from those who have built and sailed them, not from armchair experts who have never sailed , built nor even seen one.
    Luck never lasts 30 years and hundreds of boats, in an unbroken streak. That's not luck, it's fact. It over rides theoretical calculations; with reality.If structural problems were even a remote likelihood , they would have happened many times over the last 30 years, not waited till now, or some future date. It doesn't work that way.
    As I have pointed out, any hard chine hull can be built using origami methods, with huge savings in time and money .I have often encouraged those who seek a different hull than I want to design, to go ahead with another design. I only design what I believe in. I give them all the technical help I can , free of charge.
    The more happy people there are with steel boats, including the not so rich, the better off all steel boat builders. We have different clientel but common interests.The more people who move to steel, the more will want to follow them.
    Older methods obviously work, with a much greater effort and time, and potential for distortion, but origami is the next logical step along metal boat evolution.
    Steel has, as yet huge unreaized potential for small ocean cruisers .
    Lets keep the evolution advancing, and not get stuck at any one point..
  14. MikeJohns
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 3,192
    Likes: 208, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2054
    Location: Australia

    MikeJohns Senior Member

    Brent was supported and encouraged initially on this site. But he started making some statements that were wrong with respect to just how structures work. He claimed that he had a novel and creative new technique that made transverse frames unnecessary in boats up to 60 feet.

    Unfortunately it was based on a very serious misunderstanding of structural principles.

    He made numerous attacks on existing and proper design and build procedures for people not adopting his method. When we tried to point out he was actually more than a little misinformed he didn't respond very sensibly.

    A subsequent look at his construction 'plans' for his 36 footer and a look at his construction methods revealed a lot of very poor detail and techniques that could be and should be easily improved. In fact his construction techniques are very poor.

    Brent doesn't hold with discussion of improving the design even though there are some abysmal design flaws that may even lead to the hull being breached at some stage.

    His justification for the design involves deceptive claims of what his designs have endured. Tales that come from Brent with a glimmer of truth but a lot of creative spin added for marketing purposes. None of the inflated anecdotes come from a third party but only from Brent.

    What is really concerning is that he has fudged stability and clearly lied about how that had been derived, his vessels will have nothing like the stability he claims, of all the issues this is a particularly serious one.

    His response to having any of his errors pointed out was not to accept and discuss them and move on, but to try and twist distort and mud sling.

    So he slowly dug a hole in which he now resides.

    And a 26 31 or 36 foot steel boat will be very forgiving of design and construction flaws. An alloy one won't, neither will a larger vessel.

    If you want to do a statistical analysis then you need to involve more vessels than just Brent's. Class rules have already done this and suggest absolute minimums that should be adhered to. To this end a lot of Brent boats have been constructed properly with extra framing and good fabrication. Those boats will be more durable in the long run.

  15. welder/fitter
    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 407
    Likes: 32, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Vancouver

    welder/fitter Senior Member

    I'm not sure why you need proof of sinkings or structural failure.

    I agree with this statement completely. I believe that the statement could be extended to include flaws in construction and questions regarding the knowledge of the designer & builder.

    Here's food for thought:

    The ability of a boat to float, and float upright, is one of the most basic requirements for any safe craft. In previous articles we have discussed the stability and buoyancy requirements (ISO 12217), and the supporting requirements relating to watertight and quick-draining cockpits (ISO 11812), and windows, portlights, hatches, deadlights and doors (ISO 12216). However, it is also essential that the boat’s structure is strong enough to withstand the worst conditions expected for its intended (designed) use. This is expressed in Essential Safety Requirement 3.1 of the Recreational Craft Directive, which reads:

    ‘The choice and combination of materials and its construction shall ensure that the craft is strong enough in all respects. Special attention shall be paid to Design Category ... and the manufacturer’s maximum recommended load...’

    This second fundamental requirement can be addressed in a number of ways:

    compliance with harmonised standard ISO 12215 – Hull construction and scantlings.
    using other published scantling determination methods — eg classification society rules.
    direct calculation using basic engineering principles.
    trials and/or testing — eg a drop test.
    documented empirical knowledge derived from a satisfactory service history.
    comparison with a similar boat with a service history known to be satisfactory.
    The last two methods are not explicitly described in any of the official documents, but are referred to in the RSG Guidelines and the British Marine Federation RCD Workshop Manual.
    The RCD also specifically requires adequate strength of strong points for towing, anchoring or mooring, and this is addressed by ISO 15084.

    In all these cases it is essential that the approach adopted is properly documented in the boat’s Technical File, in order to satisfy Notified Bodies for craft being built under RCD Type Approval Procedures and in preparation for any challenge by another party. In general, calculation methods are not used for boats under about 6m (20ft) in length, and practical (test or experience) methods are most suitable for boats up to about 9m (30ft) in length.

    Where previous service history is relied upon, then this must be supported with information about numbers of craft built and year of construction, the scantlings employed, the Design Category, any changes in production methods, and records of any structural problems encountered. A one-line statement in the file stating ‘scantlings proven by experience to be satisfactory’ is not sufficient!

    Practical tests or trials are also acceptable. These may either take the form of the drop-test often used for RIBs, or deliberate attempts to test a prototype to destruction — eg by operation beyond the intended loading or sea conditions. In either case it is important that the design of the boat tested, and the nature of the tests undertaken be fully documented, perhaps using photographic or video evidence. The aim in both cases should be to show that the boat tested subsequently shows no signs of damage. This approach is not generally suitable for FRP sandwich construction, since delamination from the core material may not be detectable.

    The temptation may be to skimp on properly documenting a design, but this will almost certainly cause considerable grief if a subsequent challenge to the CE marking should occur.
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.