Posted by John Nichols on April 27, 2005 at 18:00:09 from 165.91.196.105 user Mcneacail.
In Reply to: Re: Mary Anne Design/Rivets posted by Owen roberts on April 27, 2005 at 11:28:51:
Design Flaws.
The real issue here is one of risk. The level of risk that one is willing to bear.
A good solid log is going to float for a long time and lashed to one, such as a mast, I have read tales of people floating to lost islands. But the problem is that one can not take much food and there is a good risk of dying of thirst whilst lashed to the log.
So we hollow out the log and get a canoe. It is a long slow process using fire and if the log has a split it can all be for naught. But the log makes it so you can paddle and maybe make money. The log canoe is also sinking proof and if it rolls over you can cling to to it aka the log. So there is less risk of dying of thirst cause you can paddle and sharks cause you are inside the canoe and as a good friend of mine once said of her sailing husband - "he created new life in his boat". Those were her exact words and as she had multiple children and the couple sailed every weekend I think I knew what she meant.
So then someone gets the bright idea of splitting the log and making planks and so and so forth using timber nails and then copper nails and then steel and then steel plate and we arrive at the Titanic. Which had some 20 life boats - which were tested in Ireland with 80 workman per boat. Assuming that the average passenger was 67% of the weight of an Irish laborer (seems reasonable number) and 20 boats then the life boats should have had sufficient capacity for a mass of 2400 people, and there was 2222 on the Titanic. At this point I think I would prefer to have John or Nancy as the Captain than whoever was Captain of the Titanic. (Here I am not kidding I have considered for a long time that the Captain was criminally negligent in his actions. I have skippered enough boats to be allowed to have that opinion.)
So the more flimsy the boat and the less safety gear you carry then the more likely you are to come a cropper in a disaster. I am thinking here of the Woolworths plate.
So if I epoxy the garboard to the keel and epoxy the screws in my thinking is that it will be as safe as I can make it. At the price of making it difficult to get the screws out. If the keel springs a leak it will mean we have a damaged boat on the water, which I see as a real issue.
If I am in my garage and it takes me an extra few hours to get the screws out - well I can always get a coke out of the frig, and the hardware store is nearby with new drill bits and no one is likely to be hurt in the process, whereas losing a boat in the middle of a lake is not pleasant.
So I am a belt and braces man. After all it is my daughter sailing in the boat and she trusts me. If it is a bit heavy - so what - she is learning to sail and a bit of weight in the keel never hurt anyone who was learning, but I prefer to have a safer design and reduce one risk level a tad.
This is how all design decisions are made, just most times we follow a code and all the decisions have been made by a bunch of wise people sitting in a room a long way away from you. Of course the copper nail people do not want the Coast Guard to adopt a rule that stops one using a clinker hull, so they will watch what happens but honest they will have your best interests at heart as the rules are developed. Think of all the safe drugs - ok well some of them have been recalled - but the companies alwyas had your best interest a heart - ok will profit is important but so are you to them.