Re: Pros and cons of steel sailboats
[QUOTE=slap;1680801]Yet some of the above claims have been refuted over and over in this thread - as an example the so called T-boning incident. And many of the brentboats have had framing added to give them more strength - seems their owners didn't think that they were strong enough. Looks like your guesstimates weren't good enough for them.
Fiberglass boats have done the NW passage, and made thousands of ocean voyages with no incident. What I cannot figure out is why do brentboat owners run their boats into reefs, etc so often? If you compare the number of brentboats to the number of collisions, groundings, etc, it seems like there is a real problem with them.
Which has nothing to do with your lack of knowledge of the structural properties of materials or structural design.
Just because someone did a hack job at guessing the stability of a brentboat doesn't mean that you have the ability to do a real stability calculation (and understand what you are doing).
I was going through a boatyard today, when someone I was with mentioned to me that a nearby steel sailboat had been recently surveyed - the surveyor put his finger through the hull where it had rusted through.[/QUOTE)
Was that boat properly painted inside, or was it bare mill scale as most Foulkes and Fehr boats are? Is it the boat's fault if you launch a bare wood hull with zero paint on it, and the teredos eat it quickly? How long would it last in sea water?
You cant name a single brentboat which had transverse frames added, beyond the structural I specify in my plans. I know of none. That story was entirely made up. You wont find one!
Talk to Comox valley architect Cesar Caflish, who was giving directions in the T- boning incident, or Victoria artist Godfrey Stephens, the skipper.
None of those who refute, have any solid evidence of their claims, unlike the many in Grammas pub that day who witnessed it, and told me about it..
Brentboats hit reefs because, unlike Smacks boats, they don't spend 95% of their lives in marinas, only sailing in ideal conditions, and actually cruise; a lot! They don't live in abject fear of a bump .Its no big deal to bump a rock or two. ( Relaxed cruising). As Steve said "Shrug and carry on!"
If you aint been aground you aint been around!
I know of very few people who choose a plastic boat for the NW passage. Because you may be able to survive Niagra falls in a barrel, that doesn't mean doing it is a good idea.
Sure, many plastic boats do ocean passages, and some don't come back, which would have, had they been steel. The Sleavin's boat is only one of many examples. Many which don't come back, were designed by people who you would claim have more knowledge than I in structural principles.
None of mine have had any structural problems at sea. Few plastic boat designers cant make that claim. When the "Incidents' You claim never happen, actually do happen, the evidence often sinks without a trace. So who's structural knowledge stands the true test?
Results speak louder than critics, and have far more credibility!
The suggestion that boats which have gone decades, and the many extreme torture tests mine have endured, without structural problems, and still be structurally "wrong", is incredibly dense!
The suggestion that boats which have cruised so many miles, without any stability problems of any kind, may be unstable, is also incredibly dense!
Last edited by Brent Swain; 04-03-2014 at 06:11 PM.