Transverse frame calculation

I start with a set of hull lines, and from that I determine the LCG, prismatic coefficient, displacement, stability,ballast location , etc. Then I take the plate shapes off that. Then make a model to double check the aesthetics in 3d and double check the LCG , stability , plate shapes, ballast location, etc, etc.
I use a combination of the formulas in Skenes Elements of Yacht Design and Herreschoffs .

Your point ,like many here, is based on lies.

 

I used to work for a internationally recognized company, producing live events. Mostly trade shows, auto racing, galas, rock concerts and that sort of thing. (pay was good and the job was different and fun). Recently they had a Formula One car take flight, and collide into a wall going 321 kilometers per hour. The driver stepped out of the car, was a bit shaken, but was otherwise fine.

I challenge you to even get a steel car to go 200mph let alone collide with 16 times the energy of freeway speeds that would normally kill someone in a production car.

Composite materials are much stronger than you want to give credit to. I guarantee you though that that structure is well over engineered and has the absolute minimum weight required to protect the driver and support the stresses on the suspension, motor, etc etc.

You are probably missing the point I am making, that Ad Hoc and others have already made. it is the engineering that allows the structure to use the least materials, and least weight, for the most strength.

"IF" your method is structurally sufficient, than in the least it is grossly, grossly, grossly over weight. If your boat is in the same weight class as others in that size range, the only thing that could be said would be it is not structurally sound.

 

Im sorry to have to ask this question Brent, but are you a native English speaker??

The reason why I ask is because you keep saying “I claim...XXX or YYY”. I have made no such claim, all the claims are made by YOU and YOU alone. Your comprehension is not very good at all.

So, here we go again.

You stated the cost of group1, structure is thus:

Upon further comments pointing out that the raw material costs are $8000 which left $9000, for your 90 hours of labour

You then claim you only charge $30/ph….which leaves $6300 unaccounted for.

You then tried to play with costs too, by then stating the list of group1 is:

And clarified further with this:

But, as I pointed out that you have alreaday taken items counted in costs of group 6 outfitting and others and suddenly made them part of group.1 structure/materials, by calling them ‘details’.

They cannot be a cost item for group 1, structure and group6, outfitting BOTH at the smae time, they are either in group1 or group6!...your financial book keeping is as poor as your structural design.

Which doesn’t answer my question, still.

So again, what has cost $6,300 in the total costs of 1. Structure/Materials, which is NOT in 6. Outfitting?

But another twist and turn you state:

But you have already separated out the cost of tools from group 1~6 here:

So, where does the $6300 go??...it is not on raw material (that is group1 cost)…it is not in structural detailing of seatings etc (that’s part of group1 too)…all that is left, is you. Hence you pocket the full $9000 for your 90hours of work.

Your acolytes that instantly prostrate when you utter a word or enter their presence may fall for your childish word play, but you are not preaching to any ‘converted’ here.

 

So, you do not control the design. You take no responsibility for the design and thus have no idea what is or is not done. Yet you claim everyone follows your advice and your book. They can't do both...follow your advice and do what they want...

 

Where is the stability book to prove this?

Post just one page of the GZ curve from your stability book. If you cannot, then you are the one with endless lies and also placing peoples lives in danger.

The stability book, based upon an inclining expriment is the only way to determine the stability. Without this, it is pure guess work...and dangerous!

So, if you have done any calculations, which i doubt, they are useless, because you allow your clients to do as they please. Hell, they are even advised to buy junk from the local scrap heap...so much for control.

 

So far you are the one that calls everyone else a liar. But it seems to be your MO to level the charges you are guilty of at others to muddy the waters in your swamp where you think you are a deity.

There's no way you started from lines except the sketch lines on a peice of paper as you developed the folding shape. On the origami forum you made it clear you had no lines, someones even offered to try and produce some for you.

So post them and prove me wrong. A GZ curve and the coefficients, how come you cant even provide these to the clients when they ask?

Its you sir who are a liar. Bit I'll eat that statement if you very simply prove me wrong.

Called out dude.

 

So as pointed out, most of Brents boats are not build to Brents structural ignorance but are properly framed. Who designs the decent structure? You need to add that to the cost of the plans.

When one of the anecdotal tales occurs how do we know whether the client built it better than Brent designed it ? If soem of the tales are true then that is probably the case.

Brent wouldn't know most of the time unless he was directly involved. If he did know he wouldn't admit it.

 

A philosophical question.

After reading again the thread I came to one thought:
The Brent's way of thinking is; all boat in any ocean, for everybody in the thirty feet to forty feet range has to be a Brent's design.
And every other boat should not exist, and the industry, large with thousand man, small with one man, steel, aluminum, wood fiberglass should close the doors?
I that case, is Brent will be ready to provide some millions copycat of the same boat for everybody?
No of course, it will be against the freedom of creation so cherished by Brent.
And I agree with this freedom.
So why trying to convince people you are the only one who knows the truth?
Why you care about other?
What the beef if plastic Swan exist? Freedom, your freedom should supersede any of these trivial thoughts.
That Brent what I don't understand, it is your dissociation between being in the system, almost the Lloyd's by yourself, and the freedom of the blue ocean where the "I don't care" motto is the most important thought you can have.
You have some kind of bipolar system of thinking (it is not insulting, I just try to understand). You use rule for scantling which are not for steel boat, but you follow these rules, you draw lines, but I saw your drawing, they are quite uneasy in a way, like if you don't want to do them, like in haste. Your draftsmanship is not realy smooth.
But in the same breath you are in the middle of nowhere, sailing, not giving a thought about design, swimming and cooking
If it's so good, why bother? Why going to the library to log in the forum?
Trying again to convince people about yourself? And finding the wall you hit is thicker and thicker every day.
I never read one article of Olin Stephens defending his drawing. He knew what he wanted, he didn't have to defend it.
No great designer had to "defend" their design, just present them and go to the next one. We all do that by the way. We will say: you don't like my design? Tough Ti Ti! It's already sold anyway!
When you know you right, your only concern should be not the forum, but yourself and your design. The rest is pure waste of time.
And why spending very precious time attacking everything which is not steel? It is not some kid of waste of energy. Do you think people relay care about what you or we think? And why having these long rambling post about money and thieves and bad peoples?
Perhaps you are to lonely.
Daniel

 

Is it just me or does it seem odd to others that the boats built by Brent seem to have a disproportionately high number of serious accidents that appear very similar to other well publicized small steel boat accidents over the last 40 years or so?

 

And then you gave me negative points for trying to point out to you that you made a mess of where you put the keel framing material.

you said in the comment accompanying that negative hit "Shalers method is the original unmodified method"

You could have done a proper job of strengthening the frame simply by adding a floor, that would have made them much more robust, it ensures full fixity (making the structural member twice as strong and shortens the span which also makes the memebr much more robust. This is what should occur, not what you have come up with.

Instead you have designed a mechanism to hole the boat. A hefty side swipe on the keel like being washed side onto the bottom or a reef or rocks may sink the boat and will ensure local damage. You have also ensured a fatigue failure somewhere down the track in the vessels life.

Do you still steadfastly refuse to see this.

All you have are polemic diatribe against engineering as a process and you avoid all decent discussion.

It's sad that this thread is turning people away from your design approach, that's not what it's about. It's about producing robust reliable boats.

What's driving people away is that You twist every point and drag it into a stinking swamp of misrepresentation and distortion even when you are obviously (even to you) totally wrong.

You still haven't actually admitted you got the basis of your longitudinals strength wrong. I don't think you can't actually admit you are wrong. That leaves weak boats that could be significantly improved with minimal material and cost.

But you will deny your clients this advantage because of what.........your ego?

I'd like to see those lines.
I don't believe you either, forgive me but I've learned to mistrust what you say.
I doubt you used methods in Skenes et al to derive a GZ curve by using your transverse sections, you claimed before it went to 180 degrees clear, somewhere else you said you made a model to test stability.

 

Looks like we are all in the same boat then. Apex1 (Richard) and I too can join your merry club.

I got hit with ”.. You have the word of al the witnesse and people involved . You are calling them al liars…”

When asking for real hard factual evidence rather than just spiritual words

Hardly the MO of a real professional…but then again, you don’t claim to be one do you?

 

Good stuff!
One question I have; there are more sheets than that for the plans, are there not? Spec.s sheets, etc.?
Mike

 

Also downvoted by BS.

 

One zero too much accidently.. Anyway, what are the specific the ballast/displacement ratios and the AVS? How are the wheelhouse windows secured. Bus windows are a bit too large to my liking, so wonder how much green they stand?

 

Please do tell us how you detemine the longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) from a set of hull lines. This is not covered in my edition of Skene's.

And how do you double check the stability with a model? F.S. Kinney must have left that out when he edited my edition of Skene's, because I can't seem to find anything about it...

Last, but not least: You seem to think that your way of designing and building boats is the modern way. Then why on earth are you using outdated books and rules like the ones you mention?