I was trying to give you a caution that intuiton doesn't translate into engineering fact. It's not the torn hull that's the issue and I have never said there were more than one that tore it's hull. I'm talking of the other example(s) that buckled their plate. But certainly your earlier design was prone to rotating keels into the hull, and even your very own boat which you yourself posted about on one forum ( learning as you go). Perhaps you'd forgotten, none of us is getting any younger
It's just that you were denying that there had been any more so it gets hard to make any point without going down Alice's rabbit hole.
It's significant that you intuitively presumed that the curve of the hull would be strong enough and provide enough support for the keel. I think it's a good example of why your intuitive scaling logic is perilous.
Tad Roberts simply looked up some official figures, can't see how that relates to his designs, he's educated and knows how to look stuff up and allow for statistical adjustments. He also gave you a weights and moments study for your 36 as a gift and worked up a stability curve for you for free and offered to validate it with an inclining test. He's been very helpful to you for free. You don't appreciate his work though and never thanked him.
That reminds me of the fate of a ferro cement sailboat in Queensland in a cyclone I have pics of somewhere. The steel workboat got washed on top of the yacht and ground her into small bits and a mat of mesh and twisted rod. The steel boat was pulled of afloat with a relatively undamaged hull apart from some prop and rudder damage!
The mistaken presumption on my boat was that 4 -1/2 inch by 4 inch flatbars on edge, across each keel, from chine to centreline, far more strength than I have ever seen on any twin keeler her size, and certainly far stronger than anything on the Laurent Giles designed Westerly, was adequate by virtue of being far stronger than anything other designers were specifying. If I was wrong, then so were they ,to a far greater degree. The only damage I got was a slightly dented hull, when the 1/2 inch by 4 inch flat bar on edge bent across its width. Unlike them, I have strengthened greatly the keel support on my designs specifications, which were not always followed. I am in no way responsible for failure of anyone to follow what I have specified.
Check out Steve's comments on Cruisers forums, when he said Silas Crosby has hit many rocks and logs at speed, with zero damage. Try that on any other designers' twin keelers, especially the plastic ones by Laurent Giles. You would tear the bottom out of any of them.
Friends, who arrived in Cabo just after the disaster there, told me that the Joshua had dents the size of a dingy , far bigger than the space between frames .
Tad Roberts joined the jeering, adolescent heckler gang on all aspects of my boats, then made up a number, based on imagination, as to how many of my boats have been built, calling me a liar in the process. I may owe him something ,but it is anything but a thank you.
Winston told me that if is boat had transverse frames for the NW passage trip ,it would have been severely dented by ice. He said it was thanks to the lack of transverse frames that it had zero dents.
Yet you CLAIM to know someone, who CLAIMS to be a welding inspector, who CLAIMS to know more about what is in Winston's boat than Winston does , the guy who built her and sailed her thru the NW passage ? Then you CLAIM to believe him? Admitting the last point doesn't make you look like a useful source of advice on anything.
Ferro cement is fragile .I found that out when I lost my first boat, a ferro boat on a reef in Fiji, in conditions which wouldn't have damaged any of my steel boats in any way.