Jump to content

Institute for Nautical Folly


Recommended Posts

In the discussion on SV Seeker, @Foiling Optimist wisely proposed that the USA should establish a National Institute for Nautical Folly 9NINF), supported by the Office of Naval Research and the America Sociological Association.

I am sure that the White House night team has already seen Foiling Optimists's post, and flagged up this great idea.  By morning there will be a memo to the Chief of Staff, and within a few short weeks there should be a draft proposal to establish a small team to prepare an interdepartmental working group to establish a task force of interested parties to design the new NINF organisation.

Within a few short years, a Bill will be sent to the Capitol.  Then Congress can begin its solemn task of requiring the new Institute to have at least one facility in every Congressional District, with all construction to be undertaken by whichever company or consortium bought the highest number of Congress Critters.  Then the whole thing will be stuck for a few terms in a tussle between the two chambers until a late-night compromise removes all NINF coastal locations, in return for deletion of the clause banning recreational drug users from participation in the NINF, 'cos the drug ban would have excluded many of the best NINF personnel.

By the time the wise legislators have used the solemn legislative process to polish the NINF structures on behalf of the donors people, many of us will be too old to enjoy the horse-trading and pork-pulling.  And we may no longer be breathing when the relevant Senate Committee has a punch-up in its confirmation hearings for the Director of the NINF.

Mercifully, CA moves a bit faster.  So our very own Institute for Nautical Folly is now open.  I look forward to a flurry of nominations.   

I am sure that high standard of Folly will be upheld, and that we will not be deluged with mere lapses of judgement.  True Folly is sustained and persistent, and it is impervious to the petty objections of those with skill, experience and wisdom.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Israel Hands said:

Within the sailing genre alone, would there be an overall rating system?  (points for ugliness, unseaworthiness, sheer stupidity of design)  Or would each be a class?

ugliness at scale

Worlds second largest sailboat - seen in Iceland June 6 : r/sailing

This thing looks like a wedding cake that someone sat on, on one side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Israel Hands said:

Within the sailing genre alone, would there be an overall rating system?  (points for ugliness, unseaworthiness, sheer stupidity of design)  Or would each be a class?

ugliness at scale

Worlds second largest sailboat - seen in Iceland June 6 : r/sailing

It looks like it knows how ugly it is and wants to submerge to hide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Illegal Smile said:

A couple of important factors to consider in choosing candidates:

1. Likelihood of becoming a Hazard to Navigation

2. Likelihood of crew requiring  taxpayer-funded rescue efforts

3. Likelihood of boat and crew becoming a laughing stock on SA.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

FV (Floating vessel) Flyin Hawian clearly makes immortal honor roll because of and not despite its demise.   Its build saga and failure to survive a freak event (wave) on its maiden voyage clearly earn the status.  The ability to transmogrify an inheritance to floatsum is admirable.   Its demerits:  It floated on its lines when launched, it made a serviceable barge and I recall it successfully moved under sail (downwind, but it is was a multihull).     

Is the ability to waste huge amounts of money in the creation of a custom seagoing eyesore sufficient for folly, or must function as well as form be compromised for ultimate status?  I argue, as the ugly boat advisory board has done, that work boats be exempted if they are economically fit for purpose, though ugly.   Since the only purpose of a megayacht is for the owner to show the world how stupidly rich he is, Sailing Yacht A has met its brief as few rivals will ever do.   Therefore I fear it must be dropped from further consideration.

On the other hand, a work boat that is entirely unfit for purpose, fit for a purpose no sane person would consider, or fit for a purpose that could be done far more efficiently clearly can earn the title of folly.   If it is an attractive folly it might further be nominated for the grand title 'Swimming White Elephant'.

I also humbly request folly status be judged not merely on resources wasted, but graded based on percent of available resources that are wasted.   After  all, its easy for a billionaire to commission an ugly boat he rarely uses without substantially interfering with his ability to be an idle asshole consuming resources.   When a single wide trailer dweller wastes all he has modifying a serviceable boat to monstrosity level his sacrifice should not be ignored due to traditional yachter snobbery, as long as the result is obnoxious enough it immediately becomes the focal point of any confined body of water it displaces.   

The category is nautical folly.   Folly on the hard, even if vaguely boat shaped, does not qualify.  Therefore its too early to judge, but I urge the committee to keep SV Rusty Junk under consideration.   The builder is creative, frugal cheap and unfettered by two thousand years of accrued shipbuilding knowledge.    His ability to misunderestimate stresses a boat might encounter exceeds mere eyesore level in achieving true Folly status.  Construction hours alone demonstrate a huge consumption of available resources.   I am hopeful this boat won't fail to disappoint.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Illegal Smile said:

A couple of important factors to consider in choosing candidates:

1. Likelihood of becoming a Hazard to Navigation

2. Likelihood of crew requiring  taxpayer-funded rescue efforts

Factor 2 would rule out most coastal British Isles candidates, along with many Australian and New Zealand ones, which seems short-sighted.

 Though,  to be fair,  if they need a helicopter, instead of just a lifeboat then they'd still qualify...

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Illegal Smile said:

A couple of important factors to consider in choosing candidates:

1. Likelihood of becoming a Hazard to Navigation

2. Likelihood of crew requiring  taxpayer-funded rescue efforts

3.   Entertainment factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposed criteria:   A floating (or sinking) vessel extravagantly wasting resources for no apparent benefit or gain, judged by:

  • Likelihood of becoming a hazard to navigation (or proven ability after the fact)
  • Ability to force society to devote resources to a rescue or recovery.
    • Also resources consumed in environmental remediation.
  • A mesmerizing ability to capture our attention for a prolonged time
  • Amount of resources available to the owner that are consumed.
    • Lack of any benefit to the owner, either by intention or accident
    • Or ability to provide similar modest benefit with far fewer resources.
  • Intentional scope.   For example, intention to build a large plywood multihull on a vague business plan, not a money pit because 'it sank into a swamp.   The second one sank into the swamp.   The third one burned down, fell over and sank into a swamp'.  
  • Predictability of outcome to an experienced or semi educated outside observer, later proven to be correct.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

impervious to the petty objections of those with skill, experience and wisdom.

It seems like it's worth making a distinction between efforts to create a monster and efforts to defend said monster from the simple minded townsfolk who don't understand the brilliance of vision it represents. There's a charm to doing the ridiculous for its own sake that gets lost when it's tarted up with rationalizations. Vociferous defenders of folly, especially those who insist that their own folly isn't, deserve special consideration.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

Proposed criteria:   A floating (or sinking) vessel extravagantly wasting resources for no apparent benefit or gain, judged by:

  • Likelihood of becoming a hazard to navigation (or proven ability after the fact)
  • Ability to force society to devote resources to a rescue or recovery.
    • Also resources consumed in environmental remediation.
  • A mesmerizing ability to capture our attention for a prolonged time
  • Amount of resources available to the owner that are consumed.
    • Lack of any benefit to the owner, either by intention or accident
    • Or ability to provide similar modest benefit with far fewer resources.
  • Intentional scope.   For example, intention to build a large plywood multihull on a vague business plan, not a money pit because 'it sank into a swamp.   The second one sank into the swamp.   The third one burned down, fell over and sank into a swamp'.  
  • Predictability of outcome to an experienced or semi educated outside observer, later proven to be correct.

 

You've done this before, haven't you?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll nominate to the hallowed Institute the  “Pacific Iceberg”.  Anyone remember that one?  Quick googling sadly finds that most pictures have been purged from the collective Internet memory, but as I recall it was a barge built on lots of poly dock floats that was going to spread The Word in Alaska.  The best was the paddle wheels that were going to run in channels that would force water to other paddle wheels, which would be hooked to generators, which would in turn provide power to run the first set.  And the fans that would blow wind so to allow sailing in any direction.  Also, somehow a Sawmill for Jesus was involved.  I think it should be considered for inclusion due to it having been spectacularly unfit for any purpose whatsoever, let alone the stated mission of open ocean travel.  To further the cause, it was ugly, as well.  The creative visionary behind the project was quoted as saying "We have designed this floating Quad-Catamaran floating barge from the "water" up. We have researched dozens of "best practices" and are trying to put them all together under one roof."  Which sounded vaguely familiar at the time…

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, NaClH20 said:

I’ll nominate to the hallowed Institute the  “Pacific Iceberg”.  Anyone remember that one?  Quick googling sadly finds that most pictures have been purged from the collective Internet memory, but as I recall it was a barge built on lots of poly dock floats that was going to spread The Word in Alaska.  The best was the paddle wheels that were going to run in channels that would force water to other paddle wheels, which would be hooked to generators, which would in turn provide power to run the first set.  And the fans that would blow wind so to allow sailing in any direction.  Also, somehow a Sawmill for Jesus was involved.  I think it should be considered for inclusion due to it having been spectacularly unfit for any purpose whatsoever, let alone the stated mission of open ocean travel.  To further the cause, it was ugly, as well.  The creative visionary behind the project was quoted as saying "We have designed this floating Quad-Catamaran floating barge from the "water" up. We have researched dozens of "best practices" and are trying to put them all together under one roof."  Which sounded vaguely familiar at the time…

Here ya go:

Oregon "teens + dad" team build barge home and workshop - YouTube

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, accnick said:

No, very different group. As I recall, the group who built the paddlewheel barge started out in Alaska and ended somewhere like Oregon, begging furiously the whole way. I can't find any trace of them in Google.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw, that was them.  I remember they had started out in a old marina that was due for demolition.  They had a goal of getting to Alaska, but the USGC (for once, proactively) forbade the contraption from ever crossing Tillamook Bar.

 

Good google-fu!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

A5A696FF-6274-4E86-B58A-6A7E1AA791E5.jpeg

Looking at the hull form of this boat from this angle, I can't imagine it isn't going to have significant stability issues if it ever gets in the water. You can't just keep adding ballast, as there isn't enough underwater volume. The stern is just going to keep sinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the wood barge itself is the INF nominee, not a simile for Seeker.  That's the other thread.  Wasn't there some backstory on that boat cruising in Canada for a season before being abandoned on a beach?

It has the great advantage of being made of wood. IIRC, the investigated using wood for Seeker, but this guy was their consultant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 6:43 PM, AnIdiot said:

Factor 2 would rule out most coastal British Isles candidates, along with many Australian and New Zealand ones, which seems short-sighted.

 Though,  to be fair,  if they need a helicopter, instead of just a lifeboat then they'd still qualify...

You forgot French coasts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 8:34 AM, Ishmael said:

Exhibit B:

2008-02-18_2251_tincan.jpg

 

You are a bit harsh on this one... It was poorly executed but if you want to sail round the world for little money, the concept of the low tech and lightweight multihull has its merits.

Plus he borrowed the truss frame AMA from pen duick IV, just a shame that he didn't copy the 3D truss design as it would have been far stronger!

38f55e9040c5ef1f5c417d94e96a1629.jpg

And an interesting take on the subject of the low tech multi designed to cross oceans :

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2021 at 8:23 AM, Bull City said:

Ya, them.  Everything about it was poorly thought out and worsely executed.

 

A fun topic!  I’ve actually got lots of nominees, being something of a marine accident junkie (in an attempt to learn from other people’s mistakes.  Certainly make enough of my own).  Plus it’s winter and I’m bored.

For today we can go historical, with the good ship John F. Leavitt.  For those unfamiliar with the story, a fellow by the name of Ned Ackerman was inspired by the high gas prices of the late 1970s and decided that it was time for a return to the age of sail.  So, he scraped together some money and assembled a team of builders in Thomaston, Maine.  There, they launched the first wooden pure cargo schooner since 1938 (itself something of an event… I’m told by people who were there that they immediately ran aground on a sand bar.  Not a good omen).  After securing a cargo of lumber and canning supplies for Haiti (and running aground, again, in Quincy, the loading port) they set off for their maiden voyage.  In December.  Unsurprisingly, they hit a gale off Long Island, sustained damage, and had to be evacuated by helicopter.  Did she actually sink, though?  Being wood, and loaded with lumber, there were always rumors….

 

Where this falls into the category of folly comes after the post-accident analysis.  It turns out that the captain (Ned) had little experience running a vessel of that type in any circumstances, let alone offshore in the winter.  The one experienced crewman they had was injured before the voyage and couldn’t go.  They were overloaded with 1’ freeboard midships.  They were taking a vessel that was intended as a “coaster”, i.e. one that would harbor-hop down the coast and never be far from shelter, offshore in winter.  Then, many years later Andy Davis, who was on the crew and later became a NA, did an analysis of the boat for WoodenBoat magazine.  It seems that the the architect that Ned hired (Pete Culler) was a cantankerous old hand and justly famous in the back-to-the-wood movement, but wasn’t actually trained as an architect and did a very poor job.  The resulting boat was heavy, had an extremely limited cargo capacity for its size, had WAY too much sheer and, worst of all, had a stability curve that ran out at 45 degrees.  The last had to be based on an estimated VCG, as no incline experiment was ever done.  The result was, had anyone actually run the numbers, an inevitable failure.  It also marked the death, once again, of cargo under sail.

 

A bad Internet picture:

7DEFB3EE-26A1-4E8F-B574-C0E46719DB6D.thumb.jpeg.39096223f4bd46990715a20ba982a679.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NaClH20 said:

Ya, them.  Everything about it was poorly thought out and worsely executed.

 

A fun topic!  I’ve actually got lots of nominees, being something of a marine accident junkie (in an attempt to learn from other people’s mistakes.  Certainly make enough of my own).  Plus it’s winter and I’m bored.

For today we can go historical, with the good ship John F. Leavitt.  For those unfamiliar with the story, a fellow by the name of Ned Ackerman was inspired by the high gas prices of the late 1970s and decided that it was time for a return to the age of sail.  So, he scraped together some money and assembled a team of builders in Thomaston, Maine.  There, they launched the first wooden pure cargo schooner since 1938 (itself something of an event… I’m told by people who were there that they immediately ran aground on a sand bar.  Not a good omen).  After securing a cargo of lumber and canning supplies for Haiti (and running aground, again, in Quincy, the loading port) they set off for their maiden voyage.  In December.  Unsurprisingly, they hit a gale off Long Island, sustained damage, and had to be evacuated by helicopter.  Did she actually sink, though?  Being wood, and loaded with lumber, there were always rumors….

 

Where this falls into the category of folly comes after the post-accident analysis.  It turns out that the captain (Ned) had little experience running a vessel of that type in any circumstances, let alone offshore in the winter.  The one experienced crewman they had was injured before the voyage and couldn’t go.  They were overloaded with 1’ freeboard midships.  They were taking a vessel that was intended as a “coaster”, i.e. one that would harbor-hop down the coast and never be far from shelter, offshore in winter.  Then, many years later Andy Davis, who was on the crew and later became a NA, did an analysis of the boat for WoodenBoat magazine.  It seems that the the architect that Ned hired (Pete Culler) was a cantankerous old hand and justly famous in the back-to-the-wood movement, but wasn’t actually trained as an architect and did a very poor job.  The resulting boat was heavy, had an extremely limited cargo capacity for its size, had WAY too much sheer and, worst of all, had a stability curve that ran out at 45 degrees.  The last had to be based on an estimated VCG, as no incline experiment was ever done.  The result was, had anyone actually run the numbers, an inevitable failure.  It also marked the death, once again, of cargo under sail.

 

A bad Internet picture:

7DEFB3EE-26A1-4E8F-B574-C0E46719DB6D.thumb.jpeg.39096223f4bd46990715a20ba982a679.jpeg

I'd forgotten that one, thanks. And you know (I'm sure) there was a sequel to that adventure. The Leavitt was Neds 1 or second schooner. The sequel to both was the schooner, CHARM.

He built CHARMs hull and then had the boat finished locally. 

313484293_Charm2.thumb.jpg.75f6f4664d0749b37d6f99e54e701ca6.jpg

See the resemblance? After many years, finally he set sail with some crew on some sort of adventure. They tanked up and all that and several old guys got onboard and took off. I don't remember the details but they were rescued a few hundred miles south of here. 

I think that was the end of the adventures. It also proved that the old adage, "Threes a Charm", holds as much weight as "Rain by Seven, stop by Eleven" 

Charm.jpg.c0193fe1f0f296713d61c89bb6854d19.jpg

 

But this boat survived and I think is doing day sails out of Belfast. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, NaClH20 said:

Ya, them.  Everything about it was poorly thought out and worsely executed.

 

A fun topic!  I’ve actually got lots of nominees, being something of a marine accident junkie (in an attempt to learn from other people’s mistakes.  Certainly make enough of my own).  Plus it’s winter and I’m bored.

For today we can go historical, with the good ship John F. Leavitt.  For those unfamiliar with the story, a fellow by the name of Ned Ackerman was inspired by the high gas prices of the late 1970s and decided that it was time for a return to the age of sail.  So, he scraped together some money and assembled a team of builders in Thomaston, Maine.  There, they launched the first wooden pure cargo schooner since 1938 (itself something of an event… I’m told by people who were there that they immediately ran aground on a sand bar.  Not a good omen).  After securing a cargo of lumber and canning supplies for Haiti (and running aground, again, in Quincy, the loading port) they set off for their maiden voyage.  In December.  Unsurprisingly, they hit a gale off Long Island, sustained damage, and had to be evacuated by helicopter.  Did she actually sink, though?  Being wood, and loaded with lumber, there were always rumors….

 

Where this falls into the category of folly comes after the post-accident analysis.  It turns out that the captain (Ned) had little experience running a vessel of that type in any circumstances, let alone offshore in the winter.  The one experienced crewman they had was injured before the voyage and couldn’t go.  They were overloaded with 1’ freeboard midships.  They were taking a vessel that was intended as a “coaster”, i.e. one that would harbor-hop down the coast and never be far from shelter, offshore in winter.  Then, many years later Andy Davis, who was on the crew and later became a NA, did an analysis of the boat for WoodenBoat magazine.  It seems that the the architect that Ned hired (Pete Culler) was a cantankerous old hand and justly famous in the back-to-the-wood movement, but wasn’t actually trained as an architect and did a very poor job.  The resulting boat was heavy, had an extremely limited cargo capacity for its size, had WAY too much sheer and, worst of all, had a stability curve that ran out at 45 degrees.  The last had to be based on an estimated VCG, as no incline experiment was ever done.  The result was, had anyone actually run the numbers, an inevitable failure.  It also marked the death, once again, of cargo under sail.

 

A bad Internet picture:

7DEFB3EE-26A1-4E8F-B574-C0E46719DB6D.thumb.jpeg.39096223f4bd46990715a20ba982a679.jpeg

For so many years looking at the boats that many wooden boat aficionado’s seem to build, the profiles often strike one as almost cartoonish.  One wonders, how many traditionally styled 14 foot long wooden tugboats, powered by 7 hp outboard motors or 5hp inboard diesels does the world need?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panoramix said:

You are a bit harsh on this one... It was poorly executed but if you want to sail round the world for little money, the concept of the low tech and lightweight multihull has its merits.

Plus he borrowed the truss frame AMA from pen duick IV, just a shame that he didn't copy the 3D truss design as it would have been far stronger!

38f55e9040c5ef1f5c417d94e96a1629.jpg

And an interesting take on the subject of the low tech multi designed to cross oceans :

 

The concept was OK as far as it went. His problem was his design sucked, his construction sucked, and he was lucky to make it back to land. The Tin Can had about half the buoyancy it needed, it was a tri-hull submarine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Israel Hands said:
On 12/12/2021 at 1:46 AM, NaClH20 said:

Sawmill for Jesus

Best metal band name ever

 

On 12/10/2021 at 11:23 PM, Ishmael said:

As I just wrote in the Seeker thread, I think a vessel should be launched before it's eligible for this gallery of gormless.

dKU4AL4vQnKHiGTw5muS_northern-marine-85-

Ish, I have been thinking that the capsize in Anacortes of the trawler yacht Bäden may actually be the biggest folly yet presented to the institute.

The likes of Doug from SV Seeker are ultimately ignoramuses who choose to remain ignorant.   They choose neither to gain expertise nor to hire it, and so they end up with crap results.

However, Northern Marine's capsize-on-launch seems to be to be an even higher grade of folly.  They had a big budget, and they on hand all the expertise and equipment needed to do this right.  But despite having everything in their favour, they still managed to suander all their advantages, and make a series of spectacular errors which killed the boat and the company.

So I reckon that gives them the INF's Gold Star.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NaClH20 said:

A fun topic!  I’ve actually got lots of nominees, being something of a marine accident junkie

I reckon that the herein assembled Grand Council of the Institute of Naval Folly will welcome your nominations, and peruse them diligently.  So bring em on!

7 hours ago, NaClH20 said:

For today we can go historical, with the good ship John F. Leavitt.

A very worthy nomination, with multiple points of folly: deeply flawed design, overloading, use outside of intended operating conditions, under-experienced crew and skipper.  A serious contender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2021 at 11:25 AM, NaClH20 said:

Ya, them.  Everything about it was poorly thought out and worsely executed.

 

A fun topic!  I’ve actually got lots of nominees, being something of a marine accident junkie (in an attempt to learn from other people’s mistakes.  Certainly make enough of my own).  Plus it’s winter and I’m bored.

For today we can go historical, with the good ship John F. Leavitt.  For those unfamiliar with the story, a fellow by the name of Ned Ackerman was inspired by the high gas prices of the late 1970s and decided that it was time for a return to the age of sail.  So, he scraped together some money and assembled a team of builders in Thomaston, Maine.  There, they launched the first wooden pure cargo schooner since 1938 (itself something of an event… I’m told by people who were there that they immediately ran aground on a sand bar.  Not a good omen).  After securing a cargo of lumber and canning supplies for Haiti (and running aground, again, in Quincy, the loading port) they set off for their maiden voyage.  In December.  Unsurprisingly, they hit a gale off Long Island, sustained damage, and had to be evacuated by helicopter.  Did she actually sink, though?  Being wood, and loaded with lumber, there were always rumors….

 

Where this falls into the category of folly comes after the post-accident analysis.  It turns out that the captain (Ned) had little experience running a vessel of that type in any circumstances, let alone offshore in the winter.  The one experienced crewman they had was injured before the voyage and couldn’t go.  They were overloaded with 1’ freeboard midships.  They were taking a vessel that was intended as a “coaster”, i.e. one that would harbor-hop down the coast and never be far from shelter, offshore in winter.  Then, many years later Andy Davis, who was on the crew and later became a NA, did an analysis of the boat for WoodenBoat magazine.  It seems that the the architect that Ned hired (Pete Culler) was a cantankerous old hand and justly famous in the back-to-the-wood movement, but wasn’t actually trained as an architect and did a very poor job.  The resulting boat was heavy, had an extremely limited cargo capacity for its size, had WAY too much sheer and, worst of all, had a stability curve that ran out at 45 degrees.  The last had to be based on an estimated VCG, as no incline experiment was ever done.  The result was, had anyone actually run the numbers, an inevitable failure.  It also marked the death, once again, of cargo under sail.

 

A bad Internet picture:

7DEFB3EE-26A1-4E8F-B574-C0E46719DB6D.thumb.jpeg.39096223f4bd46990715a20ba982a679.jpeg

It turns out that sailing a 19th century vessel in the 20th century is no safer than it had been 100 years earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SemiSalt said:

It turns out that sailing a 19th century vessel in the 20th century is no safer than it had been 100 years earlier.

not true. they were evacuated by helicopter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, floater said:
5 hours ago, SemiSalt said:

It turns out that sailing a 19th century vessel in the 20th century is no safer than it had been 100 years earlier.

not true. they were evacuated by helicopter. 

The helicopter doesn't make the ship any safer.   It just makes the ship's demise a wee bit more survivable

Link to post
Share on other sites

a wee bit. or more than a wee bit. A chopper rescue directly interferes with the 19th century Darwinian solution to the problem we are addressing here. So yes, it appears humanity is getting stupider now, as this thread no doubt emphasizes. lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, See Level said:

We've been stupid for 100's of years :lol:

 

The Vasa,  1628...

made it over a kilometer before it capsized and sank

vasa-warship-7%255B6%255D.jpg

Yes, a design ahead of its time.  Bäden might well be displayed right next to it.

Like the X-15 next to the Space Shuttle.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mcmurdo said:

barge-chilling-park.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, See Level said:

We've been stupid for 100's of years :lol:

 

The Vasa,  1628...

made it over a kilometer before it capsized and sank

vasa-warship-7%255B6%255D.jpg

Dream big, fail big.   Pushing the envelope doesn't necessarily equal folly, since warships this size were clearly in the developmental stage and successful warship designers seldom share details freely.    Excess structural weight in part was due to the failure of materials science to get invented and inability to calculate stresses.  The design also had missteps in common with many modern vessels:   Changing specs, inflexible schedule, the desire for more headroom and an unwillingness to admit a high profile navy ship isn't fit for purpose before commissioning (LCS anybody?).  

vasacasestudy (up.edu)

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mckenzie.keith said:

Not sure if this is a perfect fit here, but it gave me a chuckle. Spotted at Costa Baja (near La Paz, BCS, Mexico). Name on side of boat has been obscured.

 

beneteau_with_20_HP_honda.png

Looks like the purpose of the boat has also been obscured.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a category for most money spent, to be blown on a maiden voyage.  We can call it the Sunk Value Award. I can think of several good candidates, but I like the No.5 Elbe on its first outing after a 1.7-ish million dollar rebuild.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grizz said:

What about a category for most money spent, to be blown on a maiden voyage.  We can call it the Sunk Value Award. I can think of several good candidates, but I like the No.5 Elbe on its first outing after a 1.7-ish million dollar rebuild.

 

Well where's the rest of the event? To be sure the video didn't cease there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently she's been refloated - but not sure as to present day fate otherwise. And what a tragedy - she was quite a striking figure when she sailed here on the bay.

8823221-600x400.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 4:43 AM, accnick said:

He clearly didn't learn anything from looking at "thousands and thousands of yachts."

Maybe he forgot to mention that he was drunk at the time.

Drunk doesn't begin to explain the FH.

Crack or acid.

The construction of that thing wouldn't have qualified as a decent garden shed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
On 12/10/2021 at 7:43 AM, accnick said:

He clearly didn't learn anything from looking at "thousands and thousands of yachts."

Maybe he forgot to mention that he was drunk at the time.

Drunk doesn't begin to explain the FH.

Crack or acid.

The construction of that thing wouldn't have qualified as a decent garden shed.

Yes, but as a garden shed, it would have made up in capacity what it lacked in structural integrity

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to think it’s not a folly if it sails well, is not an eyesore and is reasonably seaworthy.  Reasonably seaworthy because totally safe under all conditions has not yet been invented.  

So, if it works, its safe and it looks more like something you would want to board than something you would want to flush down the commode, its good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2021 at 12:14 PM, Kris Cringle said:

Charm.jpg.c0193fe1f0f296713d61c89bb6854d19.jpg

 

But this boat survived and I think is doing day sails out of Belfast. 

I actually hadn’t heard the end of that story, so thanks! I lost track after the boat was launched and then sat on a mooring in the outer harbor for ages.  I knew some of the guys working at Rockport Marine and they told tales of some head-scratching design details involved.  I’d actually been hanging around at another shop a few years before when Ned showed up ruminating about keel bolts. He’d had a cast iron ballast keel made, and fretted about the longevity of galvanized bolts.  Bronze was out (galvanic) , as was stainless (crevice corrosion), so he’d settled on titanium.  Just needed to figure out how to machine threads on round stock.  The shop I was in had a thread cutting machine (though, obviously, no dies that would work on Ti) which is probably why he showed up.  Kinda was the generally overthought nature of the project in a nutshell…. Another friend was trying to bid on a contract to build some auxiliary boats, but the design criteria got so absurdly specific that he pretty much talked himself out of any possible craft.  I will absolutely give him massive cred for the amount of work he managed to get done by himself, however.  That was not a small boat, and he wasn’t young or in good health.

Glad to see all involved landed on their feet in this case

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MTA workers wreck transport authorities only vessel (nypost.com)

I found some municipal folly.   A taxpayer funded fishing boat operated by the subway and bus folks, skippered by a guy that had steered a boat once, untrained in rescue work (or how to swim) but on standby during a bridge inspection required rescue themselves because they couldn't deploy the anchor after power failed?!   The boat was a loss.The investigation revealed that the boat's assigned captain had only piloted the boat -- or any boat -- once in his life.

A pair of inexperienced MTA boaters wrecked the transit authority’s 25-foot workboat Perfect Storm after choppy waters forced them to abandon ship near Coney Island.

Fearing for their lives amid unexpectedly harrowing conditions, the two workers called for a rescue team, which opted not to salvage the ship until the morning — by which time Perfect Storm had already “crashed into the rocky shoreline and capsized,” MTA Inspector General Carolyn Pokorny said Monday.

An IG investigation into the Oct. 15, 2020, incident revealed “an untenable situation on multiple levels” in which no official rules existed for the 20-year-old vessel, while its two-man crew lacked training, experience and — in one man’s case — the ability to swim.

Pokorny’s investigation revealed that the boat’s assigned captain had only piloted the boat — or any boat — once in his life before being assigned to take the ship out on Oct. 15 to monitor repairs near Roosevelt Island and be available for search and rescue.

But neither the captain nor his first mate had search and rescue training, investigators found. The first mate was by his own admission not a strong swimmer and only on the boat because he wanted to earn overtime pay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^this^ kinda stuff is what the anti-gov't RWNJs all have in mind. Of course, they think it's ALL like that.

I'm glad nobody got hurt but if I were a taxpayer in this area, I'd be pissed. The supervisor who put a guy with no functional experience as skipper of a gov't vessel should be given a kick in the 'nads at the very least.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

^this^ kinda stuff is what the anti-gov't RWNJs all have in mind. Of course, they think it's ALL like that.

I'm glad nobody got hurt but if I were a taxpayer in this area, I'd be pissed. The supervisor who put a guy with no functional experience as skipper of a gov't vessel should be given a kick in the 'nads at the very least.

- DSK

Your judgement is biased by actual maritime experience.   It’s hard to supervise what you are ignorant of.  Probably several supervisors back somebody requisitioned it and used to sneak it out on weekends for ‘overtime’.   After he retired the expertise level gradually dropped, but nobody wanted to kill a program that kept tax dollars going into the department instead of relying on a competing agency that actually knew about floaty things, maybe the sewage department.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an art project by Julien Berthier.

https://julienberthier.org/love-love.html

"In 2008, due to multiple coincidences, it was installed in front of the Lehmann Brothers building, two days after their bankruptcy. The press, despite my disproval, saw it as an anticipatory vision of the financial crisis. Yet neither the boat nor the banks disappeared in the following months."

 

And It also looks hilarious in a marina:

 

jpg_au_port-c1d43-1024x768.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites