The poll, PT II "Naval architects and designers are a waste of money!"

[Bob Adams]

Sorry, but you knew it was coming! What do you think will happen on the second launch?

[htom]

That would be all of 1, 2, & 4; accidentally welded to the trailer, she floats perfectly on her lines; retrieved, freed, and relaunched, is high in the water and tips.

[peter radclyffe]

the withdrawal method, just like the first date

[Bob Adams]

That would be all of 1, 2, & 4; accidentally welded to the trailer, she floats perfectly on her lines; retrieved, freed, and relaunched, is high in the water and tips.

Oh, I like that one!

[NYCKiwi]

That would be all of 1, 2, & 4; accidentally welded to the trailer, she floats perfectly on her lines; retrieved, freed, and relaunched, is high in the water and tips.

Hehe, this answer gets my vote.

[Bob Adams]

I wish I knew how to edit the poll,

accidentally welded to the trailer, she floats perfectly on her lines; retrieved, freed, and relaunched, is high in the water and tips.

Would be replacing #5

[Larks]

I wish I knew how to edit the poll,

accidentally welded to the trailer, she floats perfectly on her lines; retrieved, freed, and relaunched, is high in the water and tips.

Would be replacing #5

yep, perfect, otherwise 3,4 and bow down.....

[WX]

Mate, they should build a grandstand so we could all sit and watch.:D

[The Bigfella]

So. if she's bow down do they just add some water to the sponsons, or do they fit new sponsons up front?

[P.L.Lenihan]

the withdrawal method, just like the first date

You're answering the wrong poll Peter..:D:D:D


Cheers!


Peter

[P.L.Lenihan]

Mate, they should build a grandstand so we could all sit and watch.:D

Still a few weeks(at least) of serious work to go before launch II. That grandstand had better come equipped with a Johnny-on-the-spot and a near endless supply of cold beers......it's warm and muggy of late up here:) Who's bringing the pizzas?


Cheers!


Peter

[P.L.Lenihan]

So. if she's bow down do they just add some water to the sponsons, or do they fit new sponsons up front?

Good question Bigfella. I hope it doesn't float bow down as the solution then is almost too ghastly to consider.....if there would in fact be a solution at all, other then dynamite,that is.



Cheers!!


Peter

[pcford]

I think the biggest problem with naval architects is that they are way too expensive. They seem to think that just because you want a boat that you must be made of money.

Kinda hard to walk home if there is a problem.

Nonsense, reminds me of the old saw..."they put a boat on the label and they double the price." bonus: buy it at the auto supply store for half price.

[peter radclyffe]

I think the biggest problem with naval architects is that they are way too expensive. They seem to think that just because you want a boat that you must be made of money.
naval architects like Paladin, mmd & others can save you a fortune
on a boat, i dont underestimate their value

[Henning 4148]

I think the biggest problem with naval architects is that they are way too expensive. They seem to think that just because you want a boat that you must be made of money.

You involve an architect when you want a customer specific solution. Naval architectry is a form of engineering. Now, you take the hours that it will take to design a boat from scratch that both complies with the customers wishes and with legal and sensible safety standards - multiply that with an engineers hourly rate and that is, what you end up with. I'd guess it's not so much the hourly rate, but the number of hours it takes to design a good boat from scratch. And - the naval architect (like any engineer) has to accept responsibility / liability for his design, so, he needs a bit of a safety margin to cover risk of later changes. If he is good and has a good reputation, he will need less safety margin - but will be able to ask a higher hourly rate to start with.

Of course, you can take your business to cheap labor countries for cheaper hourly rates - but then, if there are problems meeting say US safety standards, it may be your problem.

[mmd]

A wee story meant to clarify why some people's time is so expensive:
.
.
.

A fellow owned a paper-making factory. He bought a brand-new paper-making machine that would turn out hundreds of thousands of pages of pristine white letter-paper, all stacked neatly and bound in 100-page bundles. Business was good and the owner put three shifts of four guys on to handle the demand.

One day, the factory superintendant came running into the owner's office and said, "The new paper machine has broken down. We are at a stand-still."

"Oh my god!" cried the owner. "Get the paper machine company's service department on the phone right away. We have too many orders pending to have a break down! Tell them to be here within an hour, or else!"

About forty-five minutes later the repairman arrives, carrying an impressive-sized tool box. He goes straight to the owner's office, sets his toolbox on the floor and says, "Alright, I'd like to know everything that was going right up to the minute that the machine stopped working. Please get all the men who were working with the machine before it stopped in here so I can ask questions." The owner exclaimed, "I'm so glad you are here! We have to get this machine running right away - with it out of operation, I have a dozen men standing idle, and hundreds of orders for paper falling behind deadline. This is costing me thousands of dollars per hour!"

So the men were assembled and the technician asked questions about what the machine sounded like before it stopped, and what it smelled like, and who was doing what, and where, and so on. Finally, after about ten minutes of questioning, he raised his index finger and said, "I know what the problem is!" He opened his tool box and took out a single half-inch box-end wrench and ran out of the owner's office to the machine. The owner and all his staff followed close behind.

The technician went to the machine, climbed up on a step-ladder, put the wrench on a bolt and turned it one quarter-turn. He climbed back down and said to the shift foreman, "Turn the machine back on." The foreman turned the switch and the machine hummed back to life, purring smoothly. All was well.

"Wonderful!" the owner cried. "My machine is back in operation, our employees are back to work, and we're making money again! Come back up to my office and we'll settle this bill right away. No need to wait for billing and accounting and all that other stuff - write up an invoice and I'll pay you right away, myself!"

So they went up to the owner's office and the technician wrote up his invoice and handed it to the owner. The owner's eyes bulged out, his jaw went slack, and his mouth went dry. When he recovered from his initial shock, he angrily shouted, "A thousand dollars?!! You want a thousand dollars for being here fifteen minutes and turning a single bolt a quarter turn?!! I WANT A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THIS BILL TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU THINK I SHOULD PAY SUCH AN EXORBITANT BILL!!"

The technician calmly took the invoice back, wrote a few lines on it, and handed it back to the owner. The owner read the additions:

TO TURN BOLT ONE QUARTER-TURN - $10.00

TO KNOW WHICH BOLT TO TURN - $990.00

(We don't get paid so much for what we do, but for what we know...

[marcin]

(We don't get paid so much for what we do, but for what we know...

As does any professional worth his salt. Otherwise, he's not much of a professional.

[paladin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by falchion View Post
I think the biggest problem with naval architects is that they are way too expensive. They seem to think that just because you want a boat that you must be made of money.
naval architects like Paladin, mmd & others can save you a fortune
on a boat, i dont underestimate their value


Thanks for the complement, but I'm an electronics research engineer that studied a bit with Westlawn and Yacht design Institute.....can't call meself an architect but amateur yacht designer is acceptable. I studied more for pleasure than a profession.

[P.L.Lenihan]

Hypothetical situation:

There is a 20 foot Wellbuiltboat Ltd. for sale at a good price. I buy it and proceed to stretch her out just a little bit, say out to 60 feet.In the course of doing so, I add a wonderfully roomy cabin, gorgeous dining room and helipad off the aft deck. Once completed, I go to register my boat with the proper government authorities and list the boat as a Wellbuiltboat Ltd..
Now, it just so happens that the Wellbuiltboat Ltd company never designed or built anything longer than 20 feet. Would it be considered legal to have such a boat registered as a Wellbuiltboat Ltd product?

Just curious:)


Cheers!


Peter

[Antonio Majer]

The problem with designers (in general) is that they do not perspire while working. Some common people think that one has to perspire if he is really working, hence they cannot believe designers are really working; they think that an unskilled worker that excavates a big hole in the ground is working, but in their opinion a designer sitting on his table, happy to design, is not working. They think: why to pay a man who is not working?

[mmd]

If the machine had been properly designed with a well written maintenance manual and adequate staff training given in the operation of the machine...

Well, maybe if the owner had read the bloody manual instead of filing it in the bottom drawer of a cabinet in the back room, if the employees had actually paid attention during training instead of thinking it was a grand opportunity to kibbutz and drink coffee while away from their normal duties, and if some actual maintenance of the machine had been performed, the smart guy who knows about the machine wouldn't have to come and get your sorry ass out of the wringer yet again...

[P.L.Lenihan]

Well, maybe if the owner had read the bloody manual instead of filing it in the bottom drawer of a cabinet in the back room, if the employees had actually paid attention during training instead of thinking it was a grand opportunity to kibbutz and drink coffee while away from their normal duties, and if some actual maintenance of the machine had been performed, the smart guy who knows about the machine wouldn't have to come and get your sorry ass out of the wringer yet again...


So there,put that in yer pipe an, smoke it :D:D


(Just wanted to finish that sentence for you mmd :) )

Cheers!

Peter

[SamSam]

Hypothetical situation:

There is a 20 foot Wellbuiltboat Ltd. for sale at a good price. I buy it and proceed to stretch her out just a little bit, say out to 60 feet.In the course of doing so, I add a wonderfully roomy cabin, gorgeous dining room and helipad off the aft deck. Once completed, I go to register my boat with the proper government authorities and list the boat as a Wellbuiltboat Ltd..
Now, it just so happens that the Wellbuiltboat Ltd company never designed or built anything longer than 20 feet. Would it be considered legal to have such a boat registered as a Wellbuiltboat Ltd product?

Just curious:)


Cheers!


PeterWould it be considered legal to register it as a P.L.Lenihan Ltd product?


.

[Bill R]

Well, maybe if the owner had read the bloody manual instead of filing it in the bottom drawer of a cabinet in the back room, if the employees had actually paid attention during training instead of thinking it was a grand opportunity to kibbutz and drink coffee while away from their normal duties, and if some actual maintenance of the machine had been performed, the smart guy who knows about the machine wouldn't have to come and get your sorry ass out of the wringer yet again...

:D mmd!

You just described a big part of my job...

[mmd]

I know that this is pushing this thread into an even deeper drift, but the comments by falchion about the fictitious manufacturer not providing adequate training on a poorly designed machine with intentionally built-in defects hits a soft spot. I know, I'm too close to the debate to have an unjaunticed opinion, but let me tell you about a real event that is an example of the distorted perception the general public seems to have about equipment manufacturers. As this is a real incident with real people, and there is at least reputations at stake, as well as possible legal actions pending, I will freely change names and alter the story so that the actual events remain unidentifiable, and I will not participate in any guessing games as to what the actual event was. But I trust that you will see my point:

A municipal government decided to buy a small, fast utility boat to use in its local waters. A vessel was identified as a suitable candidate and the manufacturer was asked to provide a demo boat, which they did at no cost to the municipality. This was basically a 22-ft speedboat with a couple of mid-sized outboards and a centre console helm. The promotional literature, the manuals provided with the demo boat, and the boat itself were clearly marked that the maximum capacity of the boat was four persons. The municipal employees were "demo-ing" (playing) with the boat and decided to bring a bunch of the guys along for a joyride. The pilot idled the boat up to the floating dock and proceeded to load seven more people on board, exceeding the posted capacity by a factor of 2x. Then, to make sure everyone had fun, he turned the wheel hard over and slammed the throttles wide open, hoping to "peel away" from the dock. The bow rose, the stern squatted, the boat down-flooded over the stern and promptly sank stern-first a few dozen feet from the dock. Fortunately everyone aboard was able to swim and made it safely back to the dock, but the boat was a dead loss.

So the boat was intentionally overloaded despite many notifications about what was a safe load limit, it was operated in a reckless and imprudent manner, and was lost due to these gross errors in judgement. The municipality decided that they did not want this boat because of this "accident". The manufacturer had to swallow the loss of the boat. Why?

"Because the boat ïs not capable of performing the mission it was intended to do".

The public is willing to believe that it is the manufacturer's fault, even though there is mounds of evidence that it was operator error, because they, like falchion, are content in their belief that manufacturers, designers, smart people in general, are "out to rip them off". Meanwhile, the manufacturer has to take a $50,000 hit because some jerks can't or won't read the damned instructions!

No, I was not involved in any aspect of the boat described.

OK, rant over...

[marcin]

MMD:

If all else fails, read the instructions. Not a good motto when safety's at stake.
The persons involved should have been made to pay out of their own pockets, and ticketed for breaking safety rules.
If the municipality had any sense, then they'd fire their sorry asses as well.

[mmd]

I agree, marcin, but the public perception is that it was a bad boat, not any fault of the operators. It is a common perception and difficult to dispel. People are very easy to convince that it is nefarious designers and manufacturers trying to pull a fast one, but loathe to accept that it might be negligence or plain stupidity on the part of people just like them.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

I've never understood the animosity that some (I would image a very small percentage) people seem to have concerning Naval Architects and designers.

The boat and owners involved with the vessel at the heart of this issues should by now understand that any money spent on the services of a qualified NA would have saved a great deal of money, time, effort and aggravation. If, at this point they don't, then they are a lost cause that can't learn from the past.

Why shouldn't a NA be able to make a reasonable living from his chosen profession? Every time a NA puts out a design they out their reputation on the line. They are known by the success of their work. Unfortunately they can also get a bad reputation based on the bastardization of their work by people that refuse to build to the plans as provided. IE: My (insert name of designer here) 24' boat performs poorly. Just because I added two levels of cabin to the open boat design, it shouldn't have affected the qualities of the vessel. It can't be my fault, it must be the NA that screwed up.

[rbgarr]

People have the same annoyance with other kinds of architects as well.

[peter radclyffe]

The problem with designers (in general) is that they do not perspire while working. Some common people think that one has to perspire if he is really working, hence they cannot believe designers are really working; they think that an unskilled worker that excavates a big hole in the ground is working, but in their opinion a designer sitting on his table, happy to design, is not working. They think: why to pay a man who is not working?
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

[htom]

Same-o with most people whose job is to think rather than produce volumes of output. "You've only written 300 lines of code this week!" Grrrrr. My code worked. The ten who wrote the thousands of lines apiece in that week debugged for months.

[Bob Adams]

Why not?
There are or were plenty of 32 Fords chopped and channeled, dropped so they sit low on the axles and a Chevy engine installed, and they're still registered as Ford's

Kind of reminds me of the streched GarWood thread recently, is it still a Gar? No.

[P.L.Lenihan]

Why not?
There are or were plenty of 32 Fords chopped and channeled, dropped so they sit low on the axles and a Chevy engine installed, and they're still registered as Ford's

Good point Gary, I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm just guessing then that it might work the same for grossly modified vessels.

Cheers!


Peter

[P.L.Lenihan]

Would it be considered legal to register it as a P.L.Lenihan Ltd product?
.


Another excellent point and question.Thanks SamSam! Not being able to answer this question with any authority just underscores my profound ignorance regarding legal issues of this nature. It would be nice to hear how either Mr.Tad Roberts , Mr. Micheal Mason or any other architects on board here would feel if one of their designs were modified beyond recognition, without "their" approval, but registered as one of their designs nevertheless.


Cheers!


Peter,the clueless.........

[mmd]

<Tongue firmly in-cheek>

If it were an improvement to my design, I'd stand up proudly and say that they did a fine job of modifying an already excellent design; if a disaster in looks or performance or both, I'd loudly castigate the bastards in public and threaten to sue the bejeebers outta them if'n they don't stop using my name! <grin>

[Deadwood]

Ha, after making my vote, I see I am the only optimist here!

[P.L.Lenihan]

<Tongue firmly in-cheek>

If it were an improvement to my design, I'd stand up proudly and say that they did a fine job of modifying an already excellent design; if a disaster in looks or performance or both, I'd loudly castigate the bastards in public and threaten to sue the bejeebers outta them if'n they don't stop using my name! <grin>



:D:D I hear ya Michael!:D:D Good one too!


Cheers!


Peter

[Bob Adams]

One more day to vote! Any word on the launch date Mr Lenihan?

[P.L.Lenihan]

Hi Bob,

No word yet as I don't dare bring up that subject with them at this moment due to all sorts of difficulties they have been dealing with lately.One thing is clear however, they have gone way over their first estimate of the fix requiring only 2 or 3 weeks.Perhaps they still may have 3 to 4 weeks to go? Hard to say really. Copy your poll results and keep them handy for when the re-launching does occur:)


Cheers!


Peter

[essaunders]

I'm voting that they accidentally weld the thing to the trailer...

[Timex]

They launch.
It floats.
Tie up at the dock.
Party all night.
Wake up the next day, find the sponsons filled with H2O, and it's sitting 6' of muck.

Tim

I remembered these from Sub-School, NLC.
2-Subs, Brand new, sank at the pier.

USS Lancetfish SS-296
Commissioned: Feb 12, 1945
Sinks at the Pier: March 15th, 1945
Decommissioned: March 24th, 1945

Flooded through an torpedo tube and sank on 15 March 1945 while moored alongside a pier. She was raised 8 days later and decommissioned on 24 March 1945. Sold for scrap to Yale Waste Co., Boston, MA for $ 57,189.00.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s80/timex_timex/0829604.jpg




Thursday, May 15, 1969,
Nuclear powered attack submarine Guitarro (SSN-665) sank while tied up to the dock at the Mare Island site of the San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard. The ship had been under construction since August 1965, and was due to be commissioned in January 1970.


4:00 P.M.: A civilian construction group (nuclear) began an instrument calibration assignment which required the filling of certain tanks, located aft of the ship's pivot point, with approximately five tons of water.
4:30 P.M.: A civilian construction group (nonnuclear) began an assignment to bring the ship within a half degree of trim. This entailed the adding of water to tanks forward of the ship's pivot point, to overcome a reported two degree up-bow attitude.
4:30 to 7:50 P.M.: The nuclear group continued to add water aft.
4:30 to 7:45 P.M.: The nonnuclear group continued to add water forward.
7:00 P.M. and again at 7:30 P.M.: A security watch advised the nonnuclear group that by that time the Guitarro was riding so low forward that a one and a half foot wave action, stirred up by boats operating in the river, was causing water to enter an uncovered manhole in the most forward and lowest portion of the ship's deck. These warnings went unheeded.
7:45 P.M.: The nonnuclear group stopped adding water to the ballast tanks in preparation for their lunch break.
7:50 P.M.: The nuclear group completed their calibrating assignment and began to empty the tanks aft.
8:00 P.M.: The nonnuclear group left for lunch.
8:30 P.M.: The nuclear group emptying the water from the aft tanks and a member of the group noticed " sudden down angle being taken by the boat." :eek:At approximately the same time, the nonnuclear group and others, returning to the ship from lunch, observed in down sharply at the bow with a massive flooding taking place through several large open hatches.:eek:
8:30 to 8:45 P.M.: Efforts made to close watertight doors and hatches were unsuccessful due to lines and cables running through them.
8:55 P.M.: The Guitarro sank.:cool:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s80/timex_timex/GUITARRO_5.jpg

[marcin]

They launch.
It floats.
Tie up at the dock.
Party all night.
Wake up the next day, find the sponsons filled with H2O, and it's sitting 6' of muck.

Tim

As long as it's sitting in 6' of muck and not them or anyone else under 6' of dirt...