"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...


Just curious. And I ask this in all seriousness, not to start a war.
What about guys like me? Small boat builder and amateur designer (very
amateur), do we have a place here, or would you exclude us from the
mix as organizations such as SNAME would, if I am reading their
"cannon" correctly?
Scotty from SmallBoats.com


There is a lot of creativity in amateur designers and I would hate to see it
killed by some regulations.
I don't say that one should belong to the SNAME, I am in favor of leaving
the profession or hobby wide open.
Since you build your own boats, you know your limits and whatever plan you
produce will be buildable and float right side up.
Once you start selling plans, you have a duty to your builders but there is
no need for an oversight or for regulations. Natural selection will work
quickly and that is the way it should be.

"D MacPherson" wrote in message . ..
Steve:

If I read Scotty's post correctly, I think he is referring to the general
omission of "hobbyist" level sources for training in yacht design, rather
than anything regarding newsgroups.

In reply to Scotty (assuming I read his question correctly), I guess you
need to put this in context. SNAME (The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers) and other professional societies cater to professionals.
Educating the hobbyist is just not part of their mandate. We pay a sizable
annual membership fee (something like $150/year) for the services that they
provide. So it is not surprising that you'll find very little from them.

I understand that completely, and find that fair enough. I should note
that I am quickly grandfathering into being qualified to join SNAME,
and when the time comes, I will attempt to do so. I do want access to
this information too, I have no doubt as to its value as an
organization. I am not sure I would like them to be the regulating
organization for all manufacturers.


Let me offer some thoughts based on my requirements as an instructor of an
Intro to Naval Architecture class I teach that the Univ of New Hampshire. I
have a semester to introduce the subject to mechanical engineering seniors
(it is a technical elective class). I use "Naval Architecture for Non-Naval
Architects" as a text (published by SNAME), along with information gleaned
from other naval architects and writers (much of which you can find in trade
magazines such as Professional Boatbuilder). (In particular, look for Dudley
Dawson's article "Once Around the Design Spiral", from Professional
Boatbuilder Oct/Nov 1997.) For students who want to try developing lines, I
point them first to Greg Carlson's small freeware chine hull program. Its
not without its limitations and holes, but it is a pretty nice little tool -
with almost no learning curve. And they can punch out DXF files of shell
plates and bulkheads to build small models. By the time they are done, they
will have completed a small design project and write a tech paper on a naval
architecture subject of their choice. Certainly not a 4-year program in
naval architecture, but enough to get their feet wet.

Regards,

Don

Donald M. MacPherson
VP Technical Director
HydroComp, Inc.
http://www.hydrocompinc.com




"steveb" wrote in message
...
(Backyard Renegade) lifted the trapdoor, peered
around and wrote:

Just curious. And I ask this in all seriousness, not to start a war.
What about guys like me? Small boat builder and amateur designer (very
amateur), do we have a place here, or would you exclude us from the
mix as organizations such as SNAME would, if I am reading their
"cannon" correctly?
Scotty from SmallBoats.com

I am new here too ... but here is some of what I know of Usenet:

No one can *exclude* you! This forum is not moderated, you are entirely
free to post what you want. Whether or not you get useful replies, depends
on the prescence of like-minded posters.

All newsgroups attract the "opinionated" ... and this is not necessarily a
bad thing After all, opinion is often just what is being sought, and
you
really would benefit from the following: Take what you need, and leave the
rest. If you can also contribute, that helps.

I have no idea who SNAME are, but as the old saying *sort of* goes:

If they wanted me, I probably wouldn't want to join ... lmao

Don't ever lose your sense of humour on Usenet, that way lies the asylum


steveb
---
Nervous breakdowns are hereditory.
We get them from our children
---

"D MacPherson" wrote in message . ..


Let me offer some thoughts based on my requirements as an instructor of an
Intro to Naval Architecture class I teach that the Univ of New Hampshire. I
have a semester to introduce the subject to mechanical engineering seniors
(it is a technical elective class). I use "Naval Architecture for Non-Naval
Architects" as a text (published by SNAME), along with information gleaned
from other naval architects and writers (much of which you can find in trade
magazines such as Professional Boatbuilder). (In particular, look for Dudley
Dawson's article "Once Around the Design Spiral", from Professional
Boatbuilder Oct/Nov 1997.) For students who want to try developing lines, I
point them first to Greg Carlson's small freeware chine hull program. Its
not without its limitations and holes, but it is a pretty nice little tool -
with almost no learning curve. And they can punch out DXF files of shell
plates and bulkheads to build small models. By the time they are done, they
will have completed a small design project and write a tech paper on a naval
architecture subject of their choice. Certainly not a 4-year program in
naval architecture, but enough to get their feet wet.

Regards,

Don

Donald M. MacPherson
VP Technical Director
HydroComp, Inc.
http://www.hydrocompinc.com

Yes, that is a good program. I have been drawing out a personal skiff
(20 feet) for about a year now and used that program quite a bit along
the way. It did give me a pretty good feel for not only how my boat
would "work", but also gave me a lot of direction as to where I wanted
the hull design to go and what I was looking for. Using the
calculations available there I have designed the hull, and the
interior including placement of components and taking into account
crew, equipment and such. After a year, I am almost ready to start
cutting lumber, of course I did have one more thing to do. Last week I
sent it off to a SNAME/ABYC etc. professional designer who I am hiring
to make sure everything is right, and if not to redesign it to give me
the tool I need for my boating purposes.
Scotty

"Jacques Mertens" wrote in message ...
"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...


Just curious. And I ask this in all seriousness, not to start a war.
What about guys like me? Small boat builder and amateur designer (very
amateur), do we have a place here, or would you exclude us from the
mix as organizations such as SNAME would, if I am reading their
"cannon" correctly?
Scotty from SmallBoats.com


There is a lot of creativity in amateur designers and I would hate to see it
killed by some regulations.
I don't say that one should belong to the SNAME, I am in favor of leaving
the profession or hobby wide open.
Since you build your own boats, you know your limits and whatever plan you
produce will be buildable and float right side up.
Once you start selling plans, you have a duty to your builders but there is
no need for an oversight or for regulations. Natural selection will work
quickly and that is the way it should be.


Yes, that is what I was getting to. Natural selection, versus
creativity. Hopefully this will pan out so we don't end up like
builders in the UK where an operation like mine is almost impossible.
At the same time, I see guys drawing quick copies of old designs in
CAD programs and selling or giving them away, some not even addressing
basic safety rules and even flotation. I guess, I am probably nuts
here but I think either a little more regulation, or at least
enforcement of current regulation could stop a disaster that could
lead to a knee jerk reaction. I would not even be against say,
submitting plans to a group (even if there were a small fee) for
endorsement. Possibly a group like SNAME, but they would have to
renounce their exclusionary policies first. For instance, iirc, you
can go to all the schools, pay your dues for years at SNAME, then ****
someone off and get voted right out of their org by a 70% majority. If
they were the governing body, a gruff old troublemaker like myself
could be put right out of a job/livelihood, and I did not see any
other guidelines as to what type of action could initiate this vote.
Of course, the USCG may not be the ones to do it either the way they
cater to the corporate manufacturers, and of course with the endless
red tape and cover your ass salary workers, new ideas would never get
out of the box like in the UK where the little guys just can't
operate.
I know now, by the posts to this thread that there is a general cut
off at 200 feet, maybe with the recent changes in the industry, and
new technology that allow anyone to build a boat they should consider
bringing it down to 20 feet or at least enforce the USCG regs for
smaller boats as they are now. Last season a guy called me and told me
that he was with a company that had been hired by the USCG to inspect
small builders operations to see that they were following the rules.
He very well could have been just another jamoka that wanted a free
tour of my shop and some boatbuilding lessons but I heard him out. He
told me that he would be coming over to look at my op in about a week.
I asked him if he had received a complaint or otherwise had cause to
believe that I was not following the regulations, he answered no. I
told him to come on over and bring a search warrant, or else shove it
up his butt and go bother someone else, in the middle of summer, I had
no time for him. If this is enforcement, we got a problem. Anyway,
like I said, I see a lot of quick CAD Plan hawkers on the net, and
lot's of homemade boats on the water not in compliance with flotation,
generally accepted construction standards, improper documentation and
a host of other things. I have even seen this while getting my own
boats inspected, I keep my mouth shut there though. I know it would be
almost impossible to regulate the builders, but waiting for something
terrible to happen so "natural selection" (extreme litigation) put the
idiots out of business does not seem the way to go either. Joe Schmo
can not build a train and or an auto and put it on the road or the
track, why should a boat be any different?
Just thinking out loud, Scotty from, well, you know…

I'm not sure current regulations apply to people selling plans and to home
builders. With most types of plans, like houses and other structures for
example, it is "up to the builder to modify as necessary to fit local
regulations and ordinances." I'm betting boat plans fall into the same
category. Home builders are inspected by law enforcement only to make sure
the boat has a HIN displayed properly and that the boat is not stolen. It
is of course, a good idea to familiarize yourself with ABYC standards (only
about $250) and USCG rules that apply (noting the pertinent portions are
included in your set of ABYC standards.) For someone in the business, I'd
recommend buying the set from ABYC. For the rest of the crowd, ask lots of
questions of those that bought the standards . The USCG guidelines for
backyard boat builders is a good cheat-sheet compendium of information
that's close enough for the majority of boats. It can be found on the web
and I'm also happy to email it to someone if they can't find it.

Brian


"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
"Jacques Mertens" wrote in message
...
"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...


Just curious. And I ask this in all seriousness, not to start a war.
What about guys like me? Small boat builder and amateur designer (very
amateur), do we have a place here, or would you exclude us from the
mix as organizations such as SNAME would, if I am reading their
"cannon" correctly?
Scotty from SmallBoats.com


There is a lot of creativity in amateur designers and I would hate to
see it
killed by some regulations.
I don't say that one should belong to the SNAME, I am in favor of
leaving
the profession or hobby wide open.
Since you build your own boats, you know your limits and whatever plan
you
produce will be buildable and float right side up.
Once you start selling plans, you have a duty to your builders but there
is
no need for an oversight or for regulations. Natural selection will work
quickly and that is the way it should be.


Yes, that is what I was getting to. Natural selection, versus
creativity. Hopefully this will pan out so we don't end up like
builders in the UK where an operation like mine is almost impossible.
At the same time, I see guys drawing quick copies of old designs in
CAD programs and selling or giving them away, some not even addressing
basic safety rules and even flotation. I guess, I am probably nuts
here but I think either a little more regulation, or at least
enforcement of current regulation could stop a disaster that could
lead to a knee jerk reaction. I would not even be against say,
submitting plans to a group (even if there were a small fee) for
endorsement. Possibly a group like SNAME, but they would have to
renounce their exclusionary policies first. For instance, iirc, you
can go to all the schools, pay your dues for years at SNAME, then ****
someone off and get voted right out of their org by a 70% majority. If
they were the governing body, a gruff old troublemaker like myself
could be put right out of a job/livelihood, and I did not see any
other guidelines as to what type of action could initiate this vote.
Of course, the USCG may not be the ones to do it either the way they
cater to the corporate manufacturers, and of course with the endless
red tape and cover your ass salary workers, new ideas would never get
out of the box like in the UK where the little guys just can't
operate.
I know now, by the posts to this thread that there is a general cut
off at 200 feet, maybe with the recent changes in the industry, and
new technology that allow anyone to build a boat they should consider
bringing it down to 20 feet or at least enforce the USCG regs for
smaller boats as they are now. Last season a guy called me and told me
that he was with a company that had been hired by the USCG to inspect
small builders operations to see that they were following the rules.
He very well could have been just another jamoka that wanted a free
tour of my shop and some boatbuilding lessons but I heard him out. He
told me that he would be coming over to look at my op in about a week.
I asked him if he had received a complaint or otherwise had cause to
believe that I was not following the regulations, he answered no. I
told him to come on over and bring a search warrant, or else shove it
up his butt and go bother someone else, in the middle of summer, I had
no time for him. If this is enforcement, we got a problem. Anyway,
like I said, I see a lot of quick CAD Plan hawkers on the net, and
lot's of homemade boats on the water not in compliance with flotation,
generally accepted construction standards, improper documentation and
a host of other things. I have even seen this while getting my own
boats inspected, I keep my mouth shut there though. I know it would be
almost impossible to regulate the builders, but waiting for something
terrible to happen so "natural selection" (extreme litigation) put the
idiots out of business does not seem the way to go either. Joe Schmo
can not build a train and or an auto and put it on the road or the
track, why should a boat be any different?
Just thinking out loud, Scotty from, well, you know.

Hi

"Backyard Renegade" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
"Jacques Mertens" wrote in message news:_BUgb.18539.

Anyway,
like I said, I see a lot of quick CAD Plan hawkers on the net, and
lot's of homemade boats on the water not in compliance with flotation,
generally accepted construction standards, improper documentation and
a host of other things. I have even seen this while getting my own
boats inspected, I keep my mouth shut there though. I know it would be
almost impossible to regulate the builders, but waiting for something
terrible to happen so "natural selection" (extreme litigation) put the
idiots out of business does not seem the way to go either. Joe Schmo
can not build a train and or an auto and put it on the road or the
track, why should a boat be any different?
Just thinking out loud, Scotty from, well, you know.

A lot of the cheap plans you se is no good anyway ; when you expect just a bit
of advise and realise that the design is 70 years old you maby understand that
even you saved a few $ , you will "pay" by the fact that you get an outdated
design and no way to find relevant advise. ----------- Bad idear from my point
of view, beside also 70 years ago there was also "desktop-designers" ; people
who produced boat plans without having a clue about what boat design is about
and what I find more serious than the lack of basic skills from the designers
side, is the fact that an amature builder have no way to know or reconise a set
of "toy-plans" from real boat plans.
-------- Anyone with just a bit experience will know just what to look for , but
an amature builder will rather think that the simpler the design , the easier
it's build where you with just a bit experience will know that surely that can
be true, if you want a bad boat.

With boat plans the builder often will need the advise of the designer, and as
you can not fight copying of outdated designs, your only option is, to offer a
service that is worth paying beside a repurtation that will make the designs of
yours into somthing special , for the one who chose to build one of your
designs. The web is a very difficult marked ,and for decades the boat plan
marked been flooded by old fasion designs , -------then I took the choice to
offer somthing more or rather somthing different , other designers chosen their
way to promote their designs, my way been to focus on the options with CAD.
Beside I took the stand, that amature boatbuilding, alway's been the platform
for an exiting hobby. ---------- now please know that I do talk with a bit of
experience, I am a boatbuilder and even lectured CAD at the boatbuilding school
here in Dk. But my experience is, that if you think you can make a decent offer
, by selling your own designs, you soon are up against 70 year old designs made
on a desktop, and it seem no one want modern designs and safe boats, if you can
find plans that offer you to save a few $. ------- Ontop as you know, I tried
to build ontop the tradisional lofting and section plans , and still today I
guess Cyber-Boat is the only concept, offering true lapstrake 3D models, as the
basic for the unfolded planks , where anything else I seen concerning CAD, been
smoothened surfaces , and that will not unfold the true panels.

When I closed down the Cyber-Boat site as a buisness, it never had given any
true profit but a lot of trouble being among the first few, just like you, who
tried making the web into a new marked, --------- I failed but as full-scale
plans at that time wasn't even accepted in this group ; I had a crowd against me
telling everyone , that full-scale plans didn't work , even I proven lots of
designs acturly building them, -------- but realy I got out of it, with the
experience , that people rather have a clumpsy Galant-Elefant with all flat
bottom, rather than a wonderfull new design where the designer translated the
rigid CAD tools, into somthing to acturly profit amature boatbuilding. But this
is the way things work and I guess a lot of Bolger boxes is what show american
children the true beauty of tradisional boatbuilding , I spended a lot of time
and a lot of efford , but as you know , either they sit bored behind their desk
getting their fee anyway , so nothing is easier than taking the bread from
somones mouth.
And esp. when paper is so cheap and printing is so cheap and you don't need to
pay a designer, ----- I dropped out even I bet my home made unfolding software
and other in house software is still today better than what you could find,
beside the software I develobed was produced in a real building process and
design process. But this is how the web decided ; 70 year old designs and old
fasion , pre.computer age building methods , is still what you have to fight,
even you think boatbuilding shuld not be a craft to be seen in a museum , there
isn't even any respect for the craft when it is up against an Elegant Elefant
and a crowd of usenet trolls, laughing the back out their pans , for every piece
of bread they can steal from your mouth , ------- fact is fact and boxes are
boats.
Beside if your father or grand father way back in the 50' produced a squarebox
boathull from some old popular mechanics, you are in your right to destroy any
attemt from any designer trying to make his living on decent designs. Those are
acturly as bad, as as soon as you discussed with somone who acturly want a nice
modern design, you can be sure somone will tell the world what a boat is , and
that is some 70 year old design .
P.C.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cyber-Boat/

It's not natural selection against creativity but the opposite: I want that
creativity to be out there, free from regulations and count on natural
mechanisms to balance things.

Amateur boat builders should not be protected against their will, they
should be free to decide what level of safety they want. For example, all
our designs can be have the positive and upright bouyancy as specified in
the ABYC/USCG standards but the builder is free to decide if he wants it or
not.
I don't care about that in my boats, I prefer preventative safety.
It is true that such freedom goes with responsibility. The builder should be
responsible for understanding his choices and that may require some
education. Good amateur builders will learn enough about design and building
to make an educated choice. The others may choose to go with governement
standards but leave us the choice.
I lived through that in France 25 years ago: plans for amateurs had to be
homologated by a government agency. It delayed the publication of new plans
by almost one year and doubled or tripled the cost of developing a new
design. In one of our designs, we used polar coordinates instead of
cartesian. This is much more accurate for round bilge hulls and allowed the
builder to skip lofting. A little desktop dictator forced us to remove those
coordinates from the plans and revert to the old table of offsets. We lost
time and money, the builders lost the benefit of our mathematical lofting.
Check the price of boat plans for amateurs in France: 4 or 5 times higher.

Herreshoff and Atkins designed great boats without the ABYC standards,
without STYX stability calculations, without a PE license.

Designers and amateur builders are in the same boat :-)
Excessive regulations can destroy our freedom to build our own boats. We'll
be all stuck with cookie cutter plastic buckets . . . and their high cost.

--
Jacques
http://www.bateau.com


"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
Yes, that is what I was getting to. Natural selection, versus
creativity. Hopefully this will pan out so we don't end up like
builders in the UK where an operation like mine is almost impossible.

I was kinda hoping to hear from Designers and Builders, not some silly
software designer who never built a boat!

Just to start things right, there is nothing Honeycomb about your
designs, there are only standard bulkheads and stringers. You have
cleverly (stupidly) turned them at a 45 degree angle to the logical
placement, making for much more time and material intensive building
process leaving lot's of mis-shaped areas in the boat that need to be
covered and are only good for pouring in foam.

The current Stitch and Tape builders are designing and building much
more modern boats than you, and with logical, useable shapes, so stop
saying we build ugly boxes. Have you seen my boats, CLC, etc. We have
taken the old designs and changed them drastically to fit today's
environment and boating needs. For instance, take my "Joe". Looks
enough like the old D4 or Sabot, but look closer there is a lot of
difference. The aforementioned boats were developed long ago, for sail
and oars. I have redesigned mine completely to take advantage of small
engines which are much more popular now than back then. There are
those that are building Driftboats, Whitehalls, Wherry's and other
beautiful, round boats of S+T, you are just blind to them because of
your personal narrow-mindedness.

You say we are the closed minded ones but in reality, almost every one
of us (your detractors) have tried to give you the benefit of the
doubt in the past. Each until you started tearing us down for asking
questions, most of which, to this day, remain unanswered. Everyone who
watches this group knows well how much you hate Bolger boats and my
type of operation... But in 30 seconds, last year, in the middle of
the night, while sleeping, Bolger designs sparked more boat builders
into their first boat then you have in your entire lifetime!

Per, you are a bitter man who shot his wad and failed miserably,
understandably so. You took some pretty logical construction methods
(stringers and bulkheads) and turned them to a 45 degree angle to a
definite fore and aft structure. Personally, I look at your scam as
Intellectually lazy, and as I noted before, impractical from any real
boat building point of view. Then when we tried to make suggestions,
in a constructive manner, you attack us as a group, call us stupid,
lazy, unsafe, etc. Your plans from what I have seen, don't even
address the simple fact of flotation, and you consider yourself a
responsible designer? Anyone can draw lines on a computer, even put in
a fancy "right angle" (nothing honeycomb about it) texture, but do you
know what the joint is going to look like that supports the helm, what
material, what adhesive or fastener. How the hell is someone supposed
to build a boat from a cartoon?

My suggestion is that you go back to software development. Although
your designs from my point of view are just silly and useless, they do
look pretty cool. Maybe you should try to sell your software to
artists, TV commercial producers, or even childerns toy makers.

Scotty, from SmallBoats.com

Hi

"Backyard Renegade" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
I was kinda hoping to hear from Designers and Builders, not some silly
software designer who never built a boat!

Just to start things right, there is nothing Honeycomb about your
designs, there are only standard bulkheads and stringers. You have
cleverly (stupidly) turned them at a 45 degree angle to the logical
placement, making for much more time and material intensive building
process leaving lot's of mis-shaped areas in the boat that need to be
covered and are only good for pouring in foam.


Exactly, and if you ever build a tradisional wooden boat , you know that what
take time is not the hull but the deck , the edges the troubled small corners ,
floor foundations all those small but time comsuming things that is simply not
there, when there are an outher hull and an inner hull with the room inbetween
that will hold the flotation.

The current Stitch and Tape builders are designing and building much
more modern boats than you, and with logical, useable shapes, so stop
saying we build ugly boxes. Have you seen my boats, CLC, etc. We have
taken the old designs and changed them drastically to fit today's
environment and boating needs.

That attitude is your choice, I would prefere to make new and exiting designs,
and at the same time develob new methods, more exiting designs , easier build
and in any sheet material.

For instance, take my "Joe". Looks
enough like the old D4 or Sabot, but look closer there is a lot of
difference. The aforementioned boats were developed long ago, for sail
and oars. I have redesigned mine completely to take advantage of small
engines which are much more popular now than back then. There are
those that are building Driftboats, Whitehalls, Wherry's and other
beautiful, round boats of S+T, you are just blind to them because of
your personal narrow-mindedness.


So SandG is more than one thing ,becaurse different designs is produced, -----
it can't be it is just one method , and you call me narrow minded )

You say we are the closed minded ones but in reality, almost every one
of us (your detractors) have tried to give you the benefit of the
doubt in the past. Each until you started tearing us down for asking
questions, most of which, to this day, remain unanswered.

Wrong again, you just need to check the old Cyber-Boat sites that ansvered a lot
of questions, -------- but not those that you can smell is nothing but fish.

Everyone who
watches this group knows well how much you hate Bolger boats and my
type of operation...

No not quite, I do not like the Bolger attitude, but your buisness is none of
my buisness.

But in 30 seconds, last year, in the middle of
the night, while sleeping, Bolger designs sparked more boat builders
into their first boat then you have in your entire lifetime!


"Sparked" ? ------- all I seen of Bolgers designs is flat bottomed and drawn to
fit the need of Popular Mechanics back 50' . or somthing that rather look like
a copy of what all boatbuilders made in the 20' , ------- Now I don't blame
flat bottomed boats as a lot of lake or river boats work perfect with flat
bottom , but why don't they make atlantic racers in Bolger style, why don't they
produce lifeboats Bolger style why don't they use plywood instead of steel or
epoxy.

Per, you are a bitter man who shot his wad and failed miserably,
understandably so. You took some pretty logical construction methods
(stringers and bulkheads) and turned them to a 45 degree angle to a
definite fore and aft structure.

Well Im'e sorry that F.A.A. describe the method as an attractive building method
for small aeroplanes, but please ansver what you think give the strength with a
stringer if it's not the structure it acturly form. Have you ever wondered how
these tiny ribs and thin stringers and planking can form such strong
structures, --------- maby you think the strength come from the stringer or tiny
ribs that is so easily broken , but not easily broken when glued together.

Personally, I look at your scam as
Intellectually lazy, and as I noted before, impractical from any real
boat building point of view.

And you say so without even a scale model, while F.A.A. call it an attractive
building method.

Then when we tried to make suggestions,
in a constructive manner, you attack us as a group, call us stupid,
lazy, unsafe, etc.

No that was the Elegant Elefant, I wouldn't like to drown in one of those
nomatter how many lawn cruisers that made..

Your plans from what I have seen, don't even
address the simple fact of flotation, and you consider yourself a
responsible designer?

What !!! ------- Dizzie a 5 meter true lapstrake take 3 grown up at one side of
the boat and you can hardly notis, maby you shuld look into the design of that
if you want to make your D4 more stable , -------- the smallest pram I build
loads of would hold 450 Kg with 2.08 meter length , and the 3.8 meter Dizzie not
published but build will manuver in a crowded harbour with almost no wind
, ---------- the only true sailing pram that acturly work with sails.

Anyone can draw lines on a computer,

No they can't , ------ you wouldn't even be able to figur out to place the
defination lines producing the most accurate and detailed boat shape that my
software offer, --- Software that make you morph 3D between two different
designs , not just morf 2D as you do with graphic , ------- do you even know the
difference ?

even put in
a fancy "right angle" (nothing honeycomb about it) texture, but do you
know what the joint is going to look like that supports the helm, what
material, what adhesive or fastener. How the hell is someone supposed
to build a boat from a cartoon?


What are you talking about , --------- I put 12 different boats on display each
and every one acturly build , then I develob a new building method that even F.
A.A.

My suggestion is that you go back to software development. Although
your designs from my point of view are just silly and useless, they do
look pretty cool. Maybe you should try to sell your software to
artists, TV commercial producers, or even childerns toy makers.


And my suggestion is that you try emagine your D4 and how much easier it will be
to build, leaving a honeycomb core cut in ply , easy to produce with full-scale
plans and a jigsaw . You se when there is a reliable building jig and perfect
unfolded panels , amature boatbuilding is that much easier than troubled edges
and no backing or nails in endwood. My advise is that you open your mind and
realise that even Bolger did his best to make boatbuilding into somthing that
deal with only plywood and materials and building methods avaible in the 50' ,
the 3D-H method will perform any small boat safer, stronger and easier build
, --------- but you guy's want to stay with old fasion stitch and glue in a way
where you fight the materials and only se the epoxy as the chains to hold rigid
Ply. S and G acturly can be much more than fighting the materials , but I don't
wonder all the trouble with these old fasion plans , made for a different
material in another time. For my sake you are welcom to stay with that, also
for my sake you are welcom to stay with Bolger , the childish claims I heard
about 3D-Honeycomb all showed the lack of knowleage of the ones trying to make
the group into what they realy love. Their lack of experience simply shine thru
the wish to throw dirt and say the one hit stink . And most often these
"profesionals" , just showed their lack of skills and experience , --------
throwing dirt ; realy there are people who fill their life with that.
Then there is other people who suggest anyone with a real interest in
boatbuilding, to build in a method that bring a boat at a third the cost, four
times stronger and much easier build , You made your choice I made mine.

P.C.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cyber-Boat/

You are impossible dude, and so I must abandon this part of the thread.
Scotty