Steelboats

[bbg]

Brent-there are two types of safety, primary safety and secondary safety. Primary safety is having a good strong seaworthy vessel, of whatever material, and the means to navigate and steer it in relative comfort.

Secondary safety is for when it goes tits up. A liferaft, EPIRB, lifejackets, safety harness's and flares are needed for this.

Unless you think differently, prudent sailors carry this gear.

Hopefully, it is never used...……………………………...

I suspect BS is waiting for someone to develop a steel life raft.

 

[black mercury]

In extremis, the builders of Titanic thought her unsinkable and she did not carry liferaft capacity matched to passenger numbers. As a result many perished, RIP.
.[/QUOTE]
Hope you don't mind me correcting you, but the builders designed her davits to carry 4 lifeboats each and her original drawings shows 4 lifeboats to each pair of davits. It was White Star Line that ordered the other 3 lifeboats be removed because it 'didn't look right'. She set sail with davits designed to take 4 lifeboats. And it was White Star that was claiming she was unsinkable, not the designers. Much was learnt from the disaster, unfortunately people had to perish to make those changes

 

[john_morris_uk]

In extremis, the builders of Titanic thought her unsinkable and she did not carry liferaft capacity matched to passenger numbers. As a result many perished, RIP.
.

Hope you don't mind me correcting you, but the builders designed her davits to carry 4 lifeboats each and her original drawings shows 4 lifeboats to each pair of davits. It was White Star Line that ordered the other 3 lifeboats be removed because it 'didn't look right'. She set sail with davits designed to take 4 lifeboats. And it was White Star that was claiming she was unsinkable, not the designers. Much was learnt from the disaster, unfortunately people had to perish to make those changes[/QUOTE]

Agree. Unfortunately Brent plays the martyr card in the way he claims much previous boatbuilding design theory is old hat and irrelevant. His mantra. ‘Innovation always attracts criticism’. His ludicrous claims about safety bely the fact that designers before him and since had brains and learned from the disastrous experiences of a few before them. Brent may have some thought through and ingenious ideas but some if his claims and suggestions are downright dangerous. He may claim that the fact that he’s survived is all the proof we need, bug it means diddly squat. So long as innocent lives don’t get threatened or lost, then the thread has done its bit.

 

[Brent Swain]

There’s no logic to that post.

I’ve carried a liferaft on all the steel boats I’ve sailed or skippered as well as all the GRP and wooden and Ferrocement boats I’ve sailed. Having a steel hull doesn’t eliminate the possibility of sinking and there are other reasons why you might be forced to abandon. (Eg fire)

Very few of the cruisers I met had liferafts, especially in the early days. Moitessier had none.
I spent less cruising the S Pacific for a year, than the cost of a rubber ducky .Many of those who insisted on having things like a rubber ducky, and would not leave without one, never left, while I was cruising the S Pacific on my own boat in my early 20's .
Building my first offshore boat ,along side 4 others dreaming of cruising the S Pacific , I was ridiculed for using scrounged materials, and not buying the "Must have "goodies they said I was foolish to go without.

If I bought every gadget that some salesman said I would be foolish to go without ,like them, I would have never left.
I left at age 23 . Those I met out cruising , who had bough all that crap, were in their 60s'.

I am reminded of a chandlery in San Diego who have such fear mongering down to a science . They offer all kinds of "Help " to people heading south."you definitely dont dare go to Mexico without one of these, or these, or a half dozen of these."
Then they get to Mexico and ask "What am I doing with all this junk, and where has all my money gone?"
Its amazing to see them spend a fortune on something which cant survive a collision, rather than cruise in the 'Decreed untrendy" steel hull ( oohh, wouldn't you just die, if your friends saw you in one?) which can, then try compensate for such foolishness, by a very expensive rubber ducky. Many of those lost in the Fastnet would have survived, had they not had the option of abandoning ship for a rubber ducky . I think the Baileys would have much rather have been in a slightly rusty steel boat, possibly with a dent or two, for the time it would have taken to reach French Polynesia, than in a liferaft for 117 days .
Seems far more intelligent to go in a boat like Gringo, which can survive a collision, than in a boat which would be cut in half by such an impact, and try compensate for such foolishness by having a rubber ducky to climb into.

You have said that the likelihood of hitting something in a plastic boat, and sinking are so slight, that they are not worth worrying about.
What do you call spending a years cruising funds on a rubber ducky, in case you hit something and sink?
Sure looks like "Worrying about it" to me!
The time to resolve such ":Worrying about it"is when you choose your hull material and exponentially reduce the consequences of such a collision, or fire, and, logically choose steel ,rather than plastic and a rubber ducky.

 

[rotrax]

But Brent, once again you miss a most important point.

A years cruising funds for you is someone else's pocket money, to do with as they please.

You should be applauded for your low cost lifestyle.

But, as I have clearly asked you before, stop denigrating those who choose a different lifestyle.

It does you no credit.

And most is heresay which many on this forum of normal cruising sailors don't find true.

When was the Fastnet disaster Brent?

That's right, 1979. Almost 40 years ago. The lessons that were learned are two fold. First, lightweight GRP and timber yachts are much, much better than the crews. Most of the yachts that were abandoned were found floating after the storm. The other lesson is that you are better in the boat than the liferaft-you step UP into the liferaft in a sinking situation, keeping in the yacht as long as possible.

You have a valid opinion. Opinions are like assholes-we all have one. Many of your opinions are wrong, old fashioned and suffer from the prejudice of your inverted snobbery. You give opinions about stuff you know nothing about.

GRP boats and modern leisure liferafts for example.

GRP yachts are not perfect. Nor are steel yachts. But in my opinion-I trust I am allowed an opinion-having owned a series of GRP yachts and having owned two steel vessels I am in a good position to form said opinion.

The opinion is from direct experience, GRP is a more user friendly material for making leisure craft, and far less maintenance intensive for owners.

I believe my opinion is shared by the majority of boat owners, certainly by the majority of the leisure marine industry.

And by Jean Socrates, on her third circumnavigation in a GRP boat.

Still no apology about getting that wrong Brent?

 

[dom]

Boats can sink/ become uninhabitable for many reasons. Over time, boat designers have learned to deal with this in the same way car companies introduced seatbelts, ABS brakes, traction control, radar assisted braking/swerve control, crash cages, crumple zones, fuel tank design, etc. It’s an ongoing process.

Nobody claims that driving an old 1970s car is especially dangerous in the grand scheme of things. Yet almost nobody derides the fitting of advanced ‘rubber ducky’ fuel tanks instead of solid steel ones.

Those that do inevitably inform us more about themselves than the engineering matters under consideration.

 

[NormanS]

Boats can sink/ become uninhabitable for many reasons. Over time, boat designers have learned to deal with this in the same way car companies introduced seatbelts, ABS brakes, traction control, radar assisted braking/swerve control, crash cages, crumple zones, fuel tank design, etc. It’s an ongoing process.

Nobody claims that driving an old 1970s car is especially dangerous in the grand scheme of things. Yet almost nobody derides the fitting of advanced ‘rubber ducky’ fuel tanks instead of solid steel ones.

Those that do inevitably inform us more about themselves than the engineering matters under consideration.

If boat designers are so good, why is it that so many modern boats are designed with no way of draining any accumulation of water or dirt from their fuel tanks? It used to be normal, but now it's unusual, and yet it's by far the best way of ensuring a clean supply of fuel for an engine. (Sorry for the thread drift).

 

[Wansworth]

If boat designers are so good, why is it that so many modern boats are designed with no way of draining any accumulation of water or dirt from their fuel tanks? It used to be normal, but now it's unusual, and yet it's by far the best way of ensuring a clean supply of fuel for an engine. (Sorry for the thread drift).

Since the mass movement of yachts attempting to function like houses to attract the opposite sex anything that does not work toward that aim is not thought important ........this in jest!!!!!!!

 

[Achosenman]

If boat designers are so good, why is it that so many modern boats are designed with no way of draining any accumulation of water or dirt from their fuel tanks? It used to be normal, but now it's unusual, and yet it's by far the best way of ensuring a clean supply of fuel for an engine. (Sorry for the thread drift).

I don't suppose they design fuel tanks per se, anymore than they design winches etc.

 

[NormanS]

I don't suppose they design fuel tanks per se, anymore than they design winches etc.

Do you think that the designer just leaves it to the builder to fit in a fuel tank just anywhere?

 

[Achosenman]

Do you think that the designer just leaves it to the builder to fit in a fuel tank just anywhere?

Of course not, Where on earth did you get that idea from?

The vast majority of boats don't get sailed to the far corners of the earth, so presumably the manufacturers think that their market share won't be affected by not having every conceivable bell and whistle installed.

I suspect that type of thinking keeps them in business where other celebrated builders, went the way of the Dodo

 

[NormanS]

Of course not, Where on earth did you get that idea from?

The vast majority of boats don't get sailed to the far corners of the earth, so presumably the manufacturers think that their market share won't be affected by not having every conceivable bell and whistle installed.

I suspect that type of thinking keeps them in business where other celebrated builders, went the way of the Dodo

That argument takes us neatly back to #393, regarding primary and secondary safety precautions. Give me primary every time.

 

[Achosenman]

That argument takes us neatly back to #393, regarding primary and secondary safety precautions. Give me primary every time.

Agreed...but it's a risk versus cost analysis.

 

[NormanS]

Agreed...but it's a risk versus cost analysis.

Yes, and of course it must cost a fortune to arrange for a drain valve on the bottom of a tank.

 

[Achosenman]

I see you're familiar with Hamble prices...

 

[Brent Swain]

Here is another great post, from the origamiboats site, from someone who has been cruising in one of my 36 footers around the South Pacific since the 90's .

opuspaul
Sep 21
Worse than the keel attachment is how the hulls are built. They rely on the interior structure bonded to the hull with high strength glue for stiffness. Once these boats hit a rock or reef or rack a bit from twisting, the interior breaks away from the hull and it is almost impossible to fix. There is little to no access and it is almost impossible to tell if the glue has come unstuck.

I know a guy who bought a Hunter 41 for next to nothing in Fiji after it had pounded on the reef. He spent months fixing it up but on the first offshore trip to windward the hull around the keel started cracking as the keel wobbled back and forth. He was taking on water and couldn't make Vavau and couldn't make it back to Fiji so he was forced to sail the boat to Tin Can Island (Niuafoʻou). There were no facilities or anchorage so he was forced to abandon the boat to the villagers as the boat sunk. He lost everything.

Rudders also are a joke on some production hulls. It is hard to believe but some of them actually use aluminum rudder posts or thin composite shafts on their spade rudders. Just google your brand (Hanse, Hunter, etc) along with Rudder and you will read about all the failures. There are so many problems that there are companies who specialize in replacements. https://www.newrudders.com/standard-rudders/

Bottom line is that you really need to do a lot of research if you are buying a production hull. Just because a boat has crossed an ocean doesn't mean it is any good for long term cruising. The real test is when you hit something, drag anchor one night and end up on the rocks or get smashed by a large breaking wave offshore. It happens. I prefer older and more robust designs that have thick hulls that you can access and see. Paul

 

[Brent Swain]

Hope you don't mind me correcting you, but the builders designed her davits to carry 4 lifeboats each and her original drawings shows 4 lifeboats to each pair of davits. It was White Star Line that ordered the other 3 lifeboats be removed because it 'didn't look right'. She set sail with davits designed to take 4 lifeboats. And it was White Star that was claiming she was unsinkable, not the designers. Much was learnt from the disaster, unfortunately people had to perish to make those changes

Agree. Unfortunately Brent plays the martyr card in the way he claims much previous boatbuilding design theory is old hat and irrelevant. His mantra. ‘Innovation always attracts criticism’. His ludicrous claims about safety bely the fact that designers before him and since had brains and learned from the disastrous experiences of a few before them. Brent may have some thought through and ingenious ideas but some if his claims and suggestions are downright dangerous. He may claim that the fact that he’s survived is all the proof we need, bug it means diddly squat. So long as innocent lives don’t get threatened or lost, then the thread has done its bit.[/QUOTE]

Your suggestion being that everything which happens is documented, is total bull. You give no evidence that you have ever sailed anywhere, we are supposed to take your word for it? Circumnavigations ?In your fantasies, maybe.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Agree. Unfortunately Brent plays the martyr card in the way he claims much previous boatbuilding design theory is old hat and irrelevant. His mantra. ‘Innovation always attracts criticism’. His ludicrous claims about safety bely the fact that designers before him and since had brains and learned from the disastrous experiences of a few before them. Brent may have some thought through and ingenious ideas but some if his claims and suggestions are downright dangerous. He may claim that the fact that he’s survived is all the proof we need, bug it means diddly squat. So long as innocent lives don’t get threatened or lost, then the thread has done its bit.

Your suggestion being that everything which happens is documented, is total bull. You give no evidence that you have ever sailed anywhere, we are supposed to take your word for it? Circumnavigations ?In your fantasies, maybe.[/QUOTE]

It’s interesting to note that people who have elaborate and detailed stories and protest the loudest are those who in the end often prove to be lying.

I’ve never given you many details of my sailing career over the last fifty years or so. If you think I need to somehow prove my sailing experience then it’s your problem and not mine.

I’m sailing in Malaysia in February (on a commercially registered GRP yacht). Would you like to meet me there?

PS I’ve never claimed that everything that happens is documented. However I do assert that if GRP boats fell foul to disaster as frequently as you claim then it would be in the news more often.

 

[rotrax]

I know a guy who bought a Hunter 41 for next to nothing in Fiji after it had pounded on the reef. He spent months fixing it up but on the first offshore trip to windward the hull around the keel started cracking as the keel wobbled back and forth. He was taking on water and couldn't make Vavau and couldn't make it back to Fiji so he was forced to sail the boat to Tin Can Island (Niuafoʻou). There were no facilities or anchorage so he was forced to abandon the boat to the villagers as the boat sunk. He lost everything.[Quote/]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________







So, what that part of the post tells us very clearly is that a boat which pounded on a reef for some time and was subsequently bought for peanuts, fixed up on the cheap by someone without experience, failed when it went back to sea.

Hardly surprising really Brent.

You and others like you cannot purchase a boat suitable for your requirements, so you make yourself one.

Very commendable.

It must be so frustrating having to put up with the conspiracy aimed at potential boatowners by the marine industry worldwide.

You have told them how to make a cheap, strong steel boat with ALL the attributes that you want and need but they totally ignore you and go on making unsuitable crap-according to you-which long term cruisers and world girdlers still manage thousands of trouble tree ocean crossings.

Why don't they take account of your innovative build method in a strong cheap material? I am at a loss to understand why after reading your positives on the cost and build method.

Perhaps you can explain, Brent.

 

[rotrax]

Mr Steel Boat Brent is VERY fond of putting quotes from one theme forum's and single interest websites on here, as well as unsubstantiated claims, which, when challenged on, he cannot link to.

In that vein, a little story re GRP. Nicholson built a very good GRP yacht, the 32. They then built 26 55's.

Our Ministry of Defence purchased twelve for Adventurous Sail Training, giving our armed services the chance to experience sailing all around the world at modest cost. IIRC, all were delivered in the 1970's. They were made of GRP, designed by a good designer and built by craftsmen.

They gave superb service and no doubt a number cruncher could calculate the total mileage sailed by the fleet, but certainly more than most steel boats used by long term cruising liveaboards.

When they got tired-as all hard used boats do-replacement was considered. And rejected, as NOTHING available would fit the requirements, at any price.

So, they were re-fitted and continued in service. A couple might be still in service for all I know-a few years ago they were.

So, 40 years of being sailed on all Oceans, in all weathers by hairy arsed gung ho squaddies, airmen and matelots with a pro qualified skipper in charge. The boats were still in fair nick, still floating, untold thousands of sea miles under their keels. Not one sunk through hitting a container, another vessel or a whale while in this particularly arduous useage. I suspect another poster can add better info on the Nic 55's than me!
It really is an unsuitable material to build a boat from, isn't it?