Team Philips, is it the end ?
Xinara Ltd
My opinion................. it won't.
bi...@xinara.u-net.com
01270 781000 (day) 0836 555777 (mobile0
Jim Champ
>What does anyone think the chances are it will ever sail again ?
Pretty good I would have thought. I reckon that they'll probably
manage to work out what went wrong and get a fix, even if its some
kind of link between the bows... Given that they have given their
sponsors exposure like no-one could possibly have dreamed of, and
pushed their media profile through the stratosphere, finance shouldn't
be a problem.. And composite structures like that are *very*
modifiable and repairable.
Jim C
-- NO.UnsolicitedCommercialMassEmail.PLEASE --- remove between ** to reply
jimc@**no.ucme.please.**hjones.cix.co.uk
Roy Ryder
undesirable and possibly not possible in a wave piercing hull
configuration. Imagine the shock loading as the cross member buries up to 15
foot deep in a wave. I guess this is the reason that the struts in the
centre are bowed upwards a considerable height.
Roy Ryder
Jim Champ <ji...@no.ucme.please.hjones.cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38e7b879...@news.compulink.co.uk...
kh
>
> What does anyone think the chances are it will ever sail again ?
>
> bi...@xinara.u-net.com
> 01270 781000 (day) 0836 555777 (mobile0
A real tragedy for high-tech Britain - almost as bad as all those
satellites launched into the sea by the French euro-rocket a few years
ago. I'm sure it will be fixed, though, and end up winning the race.
There must be those reading this newsgroup who frequent the pubs and
boatyards in Totnes and know what the views of the builders or designers
are on why it broke up - how about telling the rest of us? (I'm still
left with the feeling it was simply launched too soon in order to meet
the sponsors' schedules and the date with the Queen).
dougn
go screaming around the planet knowing that the front had already snapped
off once !
Clean underwear for the southern ocean please.
Doug
Xinara Ltd wrote in message <38e7af0d....@news.u-net.com>...
Guy Fawkes
>There must be those reading this newsgroup who frequent the pubs and
>boatyards in Totnes and know what the views of the builders or designers
>are on why it broke up - how about telling the rest of us? (I'm still
>left with the feeling it was simply launched too soon in order to meet
>the sponsors' schedules and the date with the Queen).
and if anyone does do so the technomafia will treat them exactly as
they have treated me.......
the design is fundamentally flawed, end of story.
--
"girlfriends? are you kidding? I'm a sex object.
every time I ask women for sex,
they object!"
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
PyroJames
dougn <do...@quista.net> wrote in message
news:38e8a...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> If it does compete youve got to hand it to Mr Goss and his team - would
you
> go screaming around the planet knowing that the front had already snapped
> off once !
> Clean underwear for the southern ocean please.
> Xinara Ltd wrote in message <38e7af0d....@news.u-net.com>...
> >What does anyone think the chances are it will ever sail again ?
> >
> >My opinion................. it won't.
Nah. I think they've put too much money and publicity to just give up now. I
reacon they'll beef it up a bit, test it again, go sailing and it'll break
somewhere else.
I don't reacon that they actually have a chance in hell of getting it round
either in one piece or the right why up.
Given the lack of bouyancy in the bows, once it starts nose diving at 40
knots with 70 knots up the tail it'll flip faster than anything on record.
Bullimore complained that he just couldn't slow down in the Southern ocean
and that was why he lost his keel, Team Phillips is never going to slow
down, except inverted.
--
PyroJames
"Dawn Wind of Kirribilli"
Titchmarsh, Essex, UK.
Guy Fawkes
>If it does compete youve got to hand it to Mr Goss and his team - would you
>go screaming around the planet knowing that the front had already snapped
>off once !
>Clean underwear for the southern ocean please.
the french, at least, know how to treat team philips....
--
"girlfriends? are you kidding? I'm a sex object.
every time I ask women for sex,
they object!"
© Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
A. Little
writes
>Several people have suggested a 'link' between the bows. This is
>undesirable and possibly not possible in a wave piercing hull
>configuration. Imagine the shock loading as the cross member buries up to 15
>foot deep in a wave. I guess this is the reason that the struts in the
>centre are bowed upwards a considerable height.
Not knowing much about boats I would none the less have thought that a
triangulation of wires from bow to bow and from bow to opposite hull
centre would be quite strong and light.
Worked on my old Tiger Moth without being too draggy.
--
A. Little
PyroJames
A. Little <Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Yf+2BBAF...@theedges.demon.co.uk...
But it wouldn't provide any lateral compression member, so unless the hull
was designed to be pre-stressed and you could "pull" the bows towards the
centreline, it wouldn't prevent lee bow forces driving the lee hull across
towards the windward hull.
Schöön Martin
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:29:03 +0100, kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
>
>
> >There must be those reading this newsgroup who frequent the pubs and
> >boatyards in Totnes and know what the views of the builders or designers
> >are on why it broke up - how about telling the rest of us? (I'm still
> >left with the feeling it was simply launched too soon in order to meet
> >the sponsors' schedules and the date with the Queen).
>
> and if anyone does do so the technomafia will treat them exactly as
> they have treated me.......
>
> the design is fundamentally flawed, end of story.
> --
Did you reach this elevated state of knowledge before or after the
accident? Maybe you have inside info the rest of us don't? Just
stating things like its time schedule being unrealistic etc. doesn't
further this discussion any bit as anyone could say that now that
we all know the boat broke. Try something profound, please.
--
========================================================================
Martin Schöön <Martin...@era-a.ericsson.se>
"Problems worthy of attack
prove their worth by hitting back"
Piet Hein
========================================================================
Ian Johnston
: Given the lack of bouyancy in the bows, once it starts nose diving at 40
: knots with 70 knots up the tail it'll flip faster than anything on record.
: Bullimore complained that he just couldn't slow down in the Southern ocean
: and that was why he lost his keel, Team Phillips is never going to slow
: down, except inverted.
I saw claims that Bullimore had added material to his keel, against the
advice of a naval architect, to improve the stiffness. Anyone know if
this was true, or just a wild theory?
Ian
Guy Fawkes
Guy Fawkes
<Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8c9g91$ln0$1...@mserv2.dl.ac.uk>, Roy Ryder <r.r...@dl.ac.uk>
>writes
>>Several people have suggested a 'link' between the bows. This is
>>undesirable and possibly not possible in a wave piercing hull
>>configuration. Imagine the shock loading as the cross member buries up to 15
>>foot deep in a wave. I guess this is the reason that the struts in the
>>centre are bowed upwards a considerable height.
>
>Not knowing much about boats I would none the less have thought that a
>triangulation of wires from bow to bow and from bow to opposite hull
>centre would be quite strong and light.
won't prevent the two bows from being forced towards each other...
>
>Worked on my old Tiger Moth without being too draggy.
not without a strut at both "sides" of the guy's X.......
--
"girlfriends? are you kidding? I'm a sex object.
every time I ask women for sex,
they object!"
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Guy Fawkes
(Schöön Martin) wrote:
>Did you reach this elevated state of knowledge before or after the
>accident?
before, as a matter of fact, though to be fair I never expected it to
fall apart so dramatically or so soon.
>Maybe you have inside info the rest of us don't?
maybe I do, it is right in my backyard so to speak, but then again,
maybe i don't
>Just
>stating things like its time schedule being unrealistic etc. doesn't
>further this discussion any bit as anyone could say that now that
>we all know the boat broke. Try something profound, please.
how more profound can you get than saying the whole design philosophy
of the thing is fundamentally flawed.....
do it that shape / style if you like, but not in summat brittle like
carbon and not in eggshell thicknesses, do it in ally, or do it in
wood, if you must do it in composite borrow heavily from bird
skeletons, not bird eggs, for the layup.
while we are on the subject, pete goss is, in my opinion, nothing
short of a bloody fool, to even consider venturing to sea in a patched
up accident, and I SINCERELY hope that if he does take team philips to
sea again and it breaks (it will if it is unmodified enough to win) he
as skipper is hauled up in front of an inquiry and stripped of his
licence. (I would retract this last if it was a solo effort)
something really profound? OK
"you're never more than a few miles from land."
--
"girlfriends? are you kidding? I'm a sex object.
every time I ask women for sex,
they object!"
© Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Roy Ryder
any authoritative view. Having said that I did see a crumple zone on the
inside of the starboard keel, indicating that it had bent towards the
centre. It is expected that the failure mode was the same for both bows. No
amount of wires will prevent the bows moving towards the centreline. It must
be a rigid beam.
Roy Ryder
PS the drag in water is slightly more in water.
A. Little <Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Yf+2BBAF...@theedges.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8c9g91$ln0$1...@mserv2.dl.ac.uk>, Roy Ryder <r.r...@dl.ac.uk>
> writes
> >Several people have suggested a 'link' between the bows. This is
> >undesirable and possibly not possible in a wave piercing hull
> >configuration. Imagine the shock loading as the cross member buries up to
15
> >foot deep in a wave. I guess this is the reason that the struts in the
> >centre are bowed upwards a considerable height.
>
> Not knowing much about boats I would none the less have thought that a
> triangulation of wires from bow to bow and from bow to opposite hull
> centre would be quite strong and light.
>
> Worked on my old Tiger Moth without being too draggy.
>
> --
> A. Little
kh
>
> Guy Fawkes <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 12:29:03 +0100, kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >There must be those reading this newsgroup who frequent the pubs and
> > >boatyards in Totnes and know what the views of the builders or designers
> > >are on why it broke up - how about telling the rest of us? (I'm still
> > >left with the feeling it was simply launched too soon in order to meet
> > >the sponsors' schedules and the date with the Queen).
> >
> > and if anyone does do so the technomafia will treat them exactly as
> > they have treated me.......
> >
> > the design is fundamentally flawed, end of story.
> > --
> stating things like its time schedule being unrealistic etc. doesn't
> further this discussion any bit as anyone could say that now that
> we all know the boat broke. Try something profound, please.
>
>
Oops - you're toes are very sensitive. I was venturing an opinion that
projects are often rushed, and hence wrecked, for all the wrong reasons
- esp keeping the funds coming without putting in the effort to justify
a delay. e.g. recent NASA space shots. It still begs the question
whether those involved knew something like this would happen - it
beggars belief that no-one in the team did. By the way - does your
reaction indicate Ericsson own Philipps or something and you are in the
marketing dept? - or are they just another misguided sponsor. Sailing
people have always robbed the punters - the entire industry from
sailmakers to builders is set up to identify those with more money than
sense and relieve them of both - normally the sales campaign start at an
Earls Court boat show. Witness last year's Admiral's cup debacle where
Peter Harrison of Chernikeeff (Ex-MD of Camper and Nicholsons) supplied
exorbitant funds (£millions) to enable the UK team to win - that's what
he offered and gave them. He was rewarded with a gruesome last place and
a 'sorry, old chap' plus a reported resignation from yacht racing of the
team leader. It was ever thus - lots of fingers in the jam but no
fingerprints.
Guy Fawkes
snip
> Sailing
>people have always robbed the punters - the entire industry from
>sailmakers to builders is set up to identify those with more money than
>sense and relieve them of both
> It was ever thus - lots of fingers in the jam but no
>fingerprints.
amen
--
"girlfriends? are you kidding? I'm a sex object.
every time I ask women for sex,
they object!"
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Roy Ryder
suggested cross bracing the bows with wires as per his experience with a an
old airplane. The rest of your message has me completely foxed.
Roy Ryder
kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message news:38E99DBB...@dtn.ntl.com...
Oops - you're toes are very sensitive. I was venturing an opinion that
projects are often rushed, and hence wrecked, for all the wrong reasons
- esp keeping the funds coming without putting in the effort to justify
a delay. e.g. recent NASA space shots. It still begs the question
whether those involved knew something like this would happen - it
beggars belief that no-one in the team did. By the way - does your
reaction indicate Ericsson own Philipps or something and you are in the
marketing dept? - or are they just another misguided sponsor. Sailing
people have always robbed the punters - the entire industry from
sailmakers to builders is set up to identify those with more money than
sense and relieve them of both - normally the sales campaign start at an
Earls Court boat show. Witness last year's Admiral's cup debacle where
Peter Harrison of Chernikeeff (Ex-MD of Camper and Nicholsons) supplied
exorbitant funds (£millions) to enable the UK team to win - that's what
he offered and gave them. He was rewarded with a gruesome last place and
a 'sorry, old chap' plus a reported resignation from yacht racing of the
team leader. It was ever thus - lots of fingers in the jam but no
fingerprints.
kh
>
> You have lost the thread literally!!!!!!!!!! I was replying to a guy who
> suggested cross bracing the bows with wires as per his experience with a an
> old airplane. The rest of your message has me completely foxed.
>
> Roy Ryder
>
>
The reply was to Schoon M (from Ericsson's Intranet) - see the thread.
Donal
kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message news:38EA1124...@dtn.ntl.com...
Why?
Schoon M never mentioned your post. He replied to Guy!
I am intrigued!!!
Regards
--
Donal
Peter Thomas
<guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes
snip
>
>while we are on the subject, pete goss is, in my opinion, nothing
>short of a bloody fool, to even consider venturing to sea in a patched
>up accident, and I SINCERELY hope that if he does take team philips to
>sea again and it breaks (it will if it is unmodified enough to win) he
>as skipper is hauled up in front of an inquiry and stripped of his
>licence. (I would retract this last if it was a solo effort)
>
If he survives...
--
Peter Thomas
kh
Surely you can reply to a comment made in a reply? - like this one to
you. Please tell if not why not. There are numerous instances in this
thread alone. Presumably your news client produces a graphic of the
thread - I'm sure o/l express did and the client I am using now,
navigator/messenger certainly does. Incidentally Roy Ryders post was
very puzzling - he has never posted a reply to Guy Fawkes but to A
Little and Jim Champ and myself - with my post included in its entirety.
Regards
A. Little
<guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes
>>writes
>>>Several people have suggested a 'link' between the bows. This is
>>>undesirable and possibly not possible in a wave piercing hull
>>>configuration. Imagine the shock loading as the cross member buries up to 15
>>>foot deep in a wave. I guess this is the reason that the struts in the
>>>centre are bowed upwards a considerable height.
>>
>>Not knowing much about boats I would none the less have thought that a
>>triangulation of wires from bow to bow and from bow to opposite hull
>>centre would be quite strong and light.
>
It would if you added a second, smaller triangle outboard.
>>
>>Worked on my old Tiger Moth without being too draggy.
>
>not without a strut at both "sides" of the guy's X.......
It would if you added a second, smaller triangle outboard.
--
A. Little
A. Little
writes
>I am the first to admit that nobody knows the cause and hence cannot claim
>any authoritative view. Having said that I did see a crumple zone on the
>inside of the starboard keel, indicating that it had bent towards the
>centre. It is expected that the failure mode was the same for both bows. No
>amount of wires will prevent the bows moving towards the centreline.
Yes they would. I am no designer but,
>It must
>be a rigid beam.
X
I
B ======================== A
Y
-------}
Y
B ======================== A
I
X
Mount small outboard struts (I) on each hull.
Run cable from A outboard of I, to B.
Run cables from hull to hull connecting
A to A
Y to A
So far as I can see this is not much different from conventional
mast staying.
>
>Roy Ryder
>PS the drag in water is slightly more in water.
>
>
>A. Little <Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Yf+2BBAF...@theedges.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8c9g91$ln0$1...@mserv2.dl.ac.uk>, Roy Ryder <r.r...@dl.ac.uk>
>> writes
>> >Several people have suggested a 'link' between the bows. This is
>> >undesirable and possibly not possible in a wave piercing hull
>> >configuration. Imagine the shock loading as the cross member buries up to
>15
>> >foot deep in a wave. I guess this is the reason that the struts in the
>> >centre are bowed upwards a considerable height.
>>
>> Not knowing much about boats I would none the less have thought that a
>> triangulation of wires from bow to bow and from bow to opposite hull
>> centre would be quite strong and light.
>>
>> Worked on my old Tiger Moth without being too draggy.
>>
>> --
>> A. Little
>
>
--
A. Little
Guy Fawkes
<Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> X
> I
> B ======================== A
> Y
>
> -------}
>
> Y
> B ======================== A
> I
> X
>
>
>Mount small outboard struts (I) on each hull.
>
>Run cable from A outboard of I, to B.
>
>Run cables from hull to hull connecting
>
> A to A
> Y to A
>
> So far as I can see this is not much different from conventional
>mast staying.
it will however dramatically increase compressive forces on the bow
section and of course the two anchor points for each cable will
undergo extreme stress, none of which is built into the hull, so it's
not a case of "just" adding some cable and a few fishplates.
kh
>
> kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message news:38EA1124...@dtn.ntl.com...
> > Roy Ryder wrote:
> > >
> > > You have lost the thread literally!!!!!!!!!! I was replying to a guy who
> > > suggested cross bracing the bows with wires as per his experience with a
> an
> > > old airplane. The rest of your message has me completely foxed.
> > >
> > > Roy Ryder
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The reply was to Schoon M (from Ericsson's Intranet)
>
> Why?
> Schoon M never mentioned your post. He replied to Guy!
> I am intrigued!!!
>
> Regards
> --
> Donal
I have looked at this again - Schoon M replied to a post from Guy F
which included part of a post from myself - Schoon M commented on that
part specifically and therefore I replied. Cheers.
A. Little
<guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 09:21:00 +0100, "A. Little"
><Fra...@theedges.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> X
>> I
>> B ======================== A
>> Y
>>
>> -------}
>>
>> Y
>> B ======================== A
>> I
>> X
>>
>>
>>Mount small outboard struts (I) on each hull.
>>
>>Run cable from A outboard of I, to B.
>>
>>Run cables from hull to hull connecting
>>
>> A to A
>> Y to A
>>
>> So far as I can see this is not much different from conventional
>>mast staying.
>
>it will however dramatically increase compressive forces on the bow
>section and of course the two anchor points for each cable will
>undergo extreme stress, none of which is built into the hull, so it's
>not a case of "just" adding some cable and a few fishplates.
I don't suppose it is.
However, I am more interested in making things happen. Fixing problems,
rather than bleating.
--
A. Little
Donal
kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message news:38EB0D7C...@dtn.ntl.com...<snip>
> Surely you can reply to a comment made in a reply? - like this one to
> you. Please tell if not why not.
Yes, of course.
> There are numerous instances in this
> thread alone. Presumably your news client produces a graphic of the
> thread - I'm sure o/l express did and the client I am using now,
> navigator/messenger certainly does. Incidentally Roy Ryders post was
> very puzzling - he has never posted a reply to Guy Fawkes but to A
> Little and Jim Champ and myself - with my post included in its entirety.
> Regards
Ooops! Having re-read the thread I have now seen Martin's comment about
timescales. I am no longer intrigued. I do suspect that Martin was really
addressing Guy, and that you got accidentaly caught in the crossfire.
Roy's post looks like a newsreader setup problem, otherwise it is puzzling.
Regards
--
Donal
Ian Johnston
: In article <up4mesk605g27el2p...@4ax.com>, Guy Fawkes
: <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes
:>it will however dramatically increase compressive forces on the bow
:>section
: However, I am more interested in making things happen. Fixing problems,
: rather than bleating.
That's all very well, but you have to make sure you are solving the right
problem. At least one report I have seen spoke of "crumpling" and "bulging"
round the still-attached bow. That strongly suggests that the failure was
through buckling, not tensile: carbon fibre is particularly bad for this
because it gets used in very thin sections.
If so, Guy is absolutely right - an increased compressive force is the
last thing you want.
Ian
Schöön Martin
> > Why?
> > Schoon M never mentioned your post. He replied to Guy!
> > I am intrigued!!!
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Donal
>
> I have looked at this again - Schoon M replied to a post from Guy F
> which included part of a post from myself - Schoon M commented on that
> part specifically and therefore I replied. Cheers.
It was my *intention* to reply to Guy F. only. I did keep some of your
text to make it easier to understand the context. Wrong move it seems.
Back to an earlier post of yours:
"Oops - you're toes are very sensitive." et cetera. Keeping in mind
that I was addressing Guy F. my respons is: I have a problem with those
guys (pun intended) who jump out of the woods *after* disaster struck
(yes I have checked with dejanews), thump their chests and tell us
they knew all the time it would never work. I know there are such guys
out there and there allways will be and I should't be bothered.
Having said that I must state that I do agree with tose who are
worried about the timing of most of the projects for The Race.
My view is that all the temas with new boats are very, very late.
This includes Playstations as they havn't used their time for sea
trials. This is not equivalent to stating that I know failure will
strike due to this. It is more likely to strike though.
Team Philips: Some of the guys involved are very experienced
(we are talking about several decades of experience) composite
structural engineers. Hence, the breakup was a surprise to me. I had
expected other problems - would the rigs work as intended? would she
behave in waves as intended?..
A. Little
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>
>If so, Guy is absolutely right - an increased compressive force is the
>last thing you want.
>
>Ian
I am neither a designer, nor more than passing interested.
It would appear to me that continual negative speculation is not a sound
route to success.
--
A. Little
Schöön Martin
> >Just
> >stating things like its time schedule being unrealistic etc. doesn't
> >further this discussion any bit as anyone could say that now that
> >we all know the boat broke. Try something profound, please.
>
> how more profound can you get than saying the whole design philosophy
> of the thing is fundamentally flawed.....
Not very profound yet - more like hot air.
>
> do it that shape / style if you like, but not in summat brittle like
> carbon and not in eggshell thicknesses, do it in ally, or do it in
> wood, if you must do it in composite borrow heavily from bird
> skeletons, not bird eggs, for the layup.
>
Brittle? In my books carbon fibre laminates have a fatigue resistance
second to none (or at least very few other structural materials). Wood
is also quite good if kept dry. Aluminium is one of the worst.
The breaking strain (I think, English is not my native tongue) of carbon
laminates are aboute twice that of aluminium. Well, this is a bit
sloppy as there are so many aluminium alloys.
And as I have pointed out elswere in this forum, there are far too
many carbon ocean racing yachts with far too many miles behind them
to write off that material as useless for the purpose. Some of these
boats were regarded as as 'far out' when built as Team Philips is
today. (This is not meant as 'proof' of Team Philips excellency. Only
time will tell.)
Will Dean
news:4dipesc5q696tm603...@4ax.com...
>
> 120 foot was (and pretty much still is) considered by many to be the
> upper safe limit for a glassfibre monohull, cats are subject to hugely
> different loadings therefore the upper limit is lower.
Why is it lower?
It's intutive that the loads are different, because a cat is a different
shape to a monohull. It's not apparent to me why some 'considered by many'
limit should be transferred from one configuration to another.
Perhaps the 'many who considered' were defining some other limit, which
happened to be reasonably well related to the length of a monohull. This
may have no relevance to a cat.
Many people thought that Aqua Quorum was too 'way out'. (Interesting that
the smallest and lightest boat in the race was the one doing the rescuing.)
They're probably descended from those who _knew_ that the railway bridge at
Maidenhead was the wrong shape to stand up.
As for the obvious design flaws in TP, we'll see....
Will
(A full member of Adrian Thompson's fan club)
Jim Champ
>120 foot was (and pretty much still is) considered by many to be the
>upper safe limit for a glassfibre monohull,
Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't several navies have glass
fibre hulled minesweepers of substantially greater dimensions? Of
course with all the contents, gear, large crew etc, they get very
different loadings... (and much greater).
Jim C
-- NO.UnsolicitedCommercialMassEmail.PLEASE --- remove between ** to reply
jimc@**no.ucme.please.**hjones.cix.co.uk
Geoff Lynch
footage I saw, it looks as if there was a 'hard spot' just forward of the
mast/dagger board area in each hull, so that instead of the whole forward
section flexing uniformly, it was as though the flexible area suddenly
became 'stiff', and thus cracked and failed. The masts are designed to bend
as much as a jumbo 747 wing in severe turbulence. If a jumbo can have wings
that cope with turbulence, then the bows can be designed to cope.
How do they solve that - only they can tell. Reinforcing at the end of the
bows doesn't sound too good an idea to me! they are probably going to have
to stiffen the whole section, but do it so it the stiffness still tapers
off towards the bow. The issue isn't that it can't be solved, the issue is
that it might not solvable in the time left (lots of
experiments/calculations).
as a comment to the doubting Thomas's out there - you may well be right, but
if we don't try out new concepts and ideas, we'll still be killing ourselves
with fossil fuelled vehicles in 2050!
by the way this isn't from the 'sender' it is from ge...@nospamm.jog.org.uk
"Guy Fawkes" <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ndehesg3o99b85lbe...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:08:53 +0100, "dougn" <do...@quista.net> wrote:
>
> >If it does compete youve got to hand it to Mr Goss and his team - would
you
> >go screaming around the planet knowing that the front had already snapped
> >off once !
> >Clean underwear for the southern ocean please.
>
> the french, at least, know how to treat team philips....
Xinara Ltd
>as a comment to the doubting Thomas's out there - you may well be right, but
>if we don't try out new concepts and ideas, we'll still be killing ourselves
>with fossil fuelled vehicles in 2050!
>
I started this thread a few days ago, thanks for the interesting
comments.
In no way am I a doubting Thomas BTW, I think engineering innovation
is a fine thing, we should push the limits. I must make it vey clear
that I am not in any way trying to belittle the designers and builders
of Team Philips, it is a great shame it will probably come to nought.
Well not completely as engineering learns from its mistakes and it may
be right next time. It is a great thing to try.
All those accountants and uneducated public out there need to
understand that engineering is in its way an art. As an example all
the scoffing about the failure of some of NASA's recent stuff I find
unbeleivable. Americans should be proud of the failures as well. Some
of the people ranged up againt NASA couldn't wire up a mains plug.
Well thats my say for now.
bi...@xinara.u-net.com
01270 781000 (day) 0836 555777 (mobile0
Guy Fawkes
wrote:
>
>All those accountants and uneducated public out there need to
>understand that engineering is in its way an art. As an example all
>the scoffing about the failure of some of NASA's recent stuff I find
>unbeleivable. Americans should be proud of the failures as well. Some
>of the people ranged up againt NASA couldn't wire up a mains plug.
what about those of us who _can_ wire up a mains plug, are engineers
by trade, but who know that we cannot afford to make even one cockup
passing judgement on those who play fast and loose and cover it up
with some excuse about "pushing the bounds of cutting edge
technology"?
this is not wartime, life is not cheap, innovation should not be at
any cost.
it is a poxy little publicity stunt / boat race, not a bunch of do or
die kamikaze chanting "death before dishonour" as they tear off into
the horizon on boats that are designed for one way trips to a deep
six.
--
Able was I ere I saw elba
© Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Bernard Whicher
the failure. Pete Goss said that they would "regroup and come back stronger.
Its not over yet" also with all the publicity he got he's got to.
Xinara Ltd wrote in message <38e7af0d....@news.u-net.com>...
>What does anyone think the chances are it will ever sail again ?
>
>My opinion................. it won't.
Schöön Martin
> Guy Fawkes <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >120 foot was (and pretty much still is) considered by many to be the
> >upper safe limit for a glassfibre monohull,
>
> Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't several navies have glass
> fibre hulled minesweepers of substantially greater dimensions? Of
> course with all the contents, gear, large crew etc, they get very
> different loadings... (and much greater).
>
> Jim C
Correct Jim. I did my military service in the Swedish navy when the
first Swedish such vessel was built. Its length was (and is) in the
45-50m bracket.
Now they are planning to build (or maybe building by now) surface
attack ships of the same size in - carbon fibre composites.
Schöön Martin
> On 06 Apr 2000 19:17:23 +0200, era...@yellow320.era-a.ericsson.se
> (Schöön Martin) wrote:
>
> >And as I have pointed out elswere in this forum, there are far too
> >many carbon ocean racing yachts with far too many miles behind them
> >to write off that material as useless for the purpose.
>
> and how many of these are one piece (no flexi joints) catamarans of
> extreme size and suject to excessive loads of wave piercing??????
>
All of them are one-piece boats (no Wharram-style flexi joints).
All of them are 80+ foot boats (some started life as mere 75' boats).
None of them are wave piercing by design but I bet all of them have
been stuffed into the back of waves in a way that will cause much
higher loads on the structure than that type of sailing should do
on a wave-piercer. That is one of the reasons for making a
wave-piercer as far as I have understood.
Since 1980 multihulls have won every single, major ocean race they
have been allowed to start in (risky statement :-). Since the last
half of the 1980s carbon fibre has been the choice material. All those
wacky 60' trimarans are all carbon. (They are not part of the "carbon
ocean racing yachts" of my earlier post as I then had round the world
racing in mind. These trimarans merely zip back and forth over the
North Atlantic when they are not racing in the coastal waters of Europe.)
A Thomas
news:38eda732...@news.u-net.com...
> > >as a comment to the doubting Thomas's out there - you may well be
right, but > >if we don't try out new concepts and ideas, we'll still be
> >
In considering remedial measures re TP, we might reflect upon the case of
the Ministry of Aeroplane Design's P1(G), the wings of which continually
fell off, during testing; the problem was eventually solved by drilling a
series of small holes close to each other, all around the wing-roots.
This very effective solution was employed on realizing that 'Government
Property' toilet-paper seldom, if ever, would tear along the perforations.
There's a lesson there, I have no doubt.
Tom AOT
Peter Thomas
writes
Was getting the aft deck/inwhale [1] joints on the Wayfarer ready to be
epoxied this sunny afternoon when a neighbour stopped to chat. He builds
racing rowing boats (skiffs? pairs?), cooperates with racing car
builders at Maclaren. He quotes them as saying that, for carbon-fibre
construction on Philips, read a large Kevlar content, as :
Carbon fibre is very, very stiff indeed
Kevlar is bendy
Pure carbon-fibre would have cost £10-15M for that size
structure, rather than £4.5M total project.
I found it enlightening, anyway.
[1] "Inwhale" is what Ian Porter called it. Stringer [?] supporting
inner edge of side deck and going aft to form part of buoyancy tank.
Original 1972 glue now going crystalline. May be able to epoxy and fibre
joint itself, and epoxy and bead fillet inside joint. Needs Wayfarer,
not the lightest of boats, inverted on supports on our sloping front
garden, dammit. Prefer the look and feel of composite to all-grp,
though.
Porters don't do this sort of repair this way anymore, on QA/legal
grounds. Guesstimate for stern rebuild approaches value of hull. Time to
learn boatbuilding, I guess.
--
Peter Thomas
Will Dean
news:W7cfsQAh...@godthoms.demon.co.uk...
>
> Was getting the aft deck/inwhale [1] joints on the Wayfarer ready to be
> epoxied this sunny afternoon when a neighbour stopped to chat. He builds
> racing rowing boats (skiffs? pairs?), cooperates with racing car
> builders at Maclaren. He quotes them as saying that, for carbon-fibre
> construction on Philips, read a large Kevlar content, as :
>
> Carbon fibre is very, very stiff indeed
> Kevlar is bendy
> Pure carbon-fibre would have cost £10-15M for that size
> structure, rather than £4.5M total project.
>
> I found it enlightening, anyway.
Is this a theory that they built it out of the a material that they knew
wasn't strong enough just because it was cheaper?
Do you really believe that? Or do you think that they might have built it
out of a mix of the two materials, using them in different places for their
different properties?
Will
jim barr
<pe...@godthoms.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Was getting the aft deck/inwhale [1] joints on the Wayfarer ready to be
>epoxied this sunny afternoon when a neighbour stopped to chat. He builds
>racing rowing boats (skiffs? pairs?), cooperates with racing car
>builders at Maclaren. He quotes them as saying that, for carbon-fibre
>construction on Philips, read a large Kevlar content, as :
>
> Carbon fibre is very, very stiff indeed
> Kevlar is bendy
> Pure carbon-fibre would have cost £10-15M for that size
> structure, rather than £4.5M total project.
>
>
>I found it enlightening, anyway.
>
This is not a reply to a specific comment, just a general observation
I have a relative who is a marine architect with unique experience in
marine use carbon fibre... I finally got to have a chat with him and
while he would have liked Team Philips to do better, he is not very
surprised by the result.
He *believes* that the TP hulls used pre-preg cloth and foam core, a
very bad combination for large structures as the moisture in the foam
boils off during the cure and almost certainly causes parts of the skin
to separate from the core. The result is not only a serious loss of
structural integrity but is also invisible.
He said a lot more but that was the gist of it, he also stressed that he
does NOT have inside sources for information, so he may be mistaken, But
he has been very reliable in the past.
Jim Barr http://www.wandana.demon.co.uk
Ji...@Barnfield.ac.uk
ji...@wandana.demon.co.uk
Best is the enemy of good enough
Barrs Law of Recursive Futility
"If you are smart enough to use one of these.....
....you can probably manage without one"
jim barr
Dean <news...@industrial.demon.co.uk> writes
>"Peter Thomas" <pe...@godthoms.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:W7cfsQAh...@godthoms.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> epoxied this sunny afternoon when a neighbour stopped to chat. He builds
>> racing rowing boats (skiffs? pairs?), cooperates with racing car
>> builders at Maclaren. He quotes them as saying that, for carbon-fibre
>> construction on Philips, read a large Kevlar content, as :
>>
>> Carbon fibre is very, very stiff indeed
>> Kevlar is bendy
>> Pure carbon-fibre would have cost £10-15M for that size
>> structure, rather than £4.5M total project.
>>
>> I found it enlightening, anyway.
>
>wasn't strong enough just because it was cheaper?
>
>Do you really believe that? Or do you think that they might have built it
>out of a mix of the two materials, using them in different places for their
>different properties?
>
>Will
>
I reckon it is an example of what my sig is getting at
We cannot always afford the best, and we cannot always wait for the
best, but *sometimes*,.. good enough is not quite good enough!!!!
Simon Waldman
> > Carbon fibre is very, very stiff indeed
> > Kevlar is bendy
> > Pure carbon-fibre would have cost £10-15M for that size
> > structure, rather than £4.5M total project.
> >
> > I found it enlightening, anyway.
>
> Is this a theory that they built it out of the a material that they knew
> wasn't strong enough just because it was cheaper?
>
> Do you really believe that? Or do you think that they might have built it
> out of a mix of the two materials, using them in different places for their
> different properties?
THat's not how I interpreted Peter's post at all: as far as I read it he
was simply reporting facts not saying it SHOUL Dhave been all
carbon-fibre.
I may be very wrong but my understanding is that it's standard to have
some proportion of Kevlar in carbon fibre structures in order to allow
it to flex more.
--
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the
polls."
-Dan Quayle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, England email: swal...@bigfoot.com
http://www.bigfoot.com/~swaldman/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Thomas
Dean <news...@industrial.demon.co.uk> writes
>"Peter Thomas" <pe...@godthoms.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:W7cfsQAh...@godthoms.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Was getting the aft deck/inwhale [1] joints on the Wayfarer ready to be
>> epoxied this sunny afternoon when a neighbour stopped to chat. He builds
>> racing rowing boats (skiffs? pairs?), cooperates with racing car
>> builders at Maclaren. He quotes them as saying that, for carbon-fibre
>> construction on Philips, read a large Kevlar content, as :
>>
>> Kevlar is bendy
>> Pure carbon-fibre would have cost £10-15M for that size
>> structure, rather than £4.5M total project.
>>
>> I found it enlightening, anyway.
>
>Is this a theory that they built it out of the a material that they knew
>wasn't strong enough just because it was cheaper?
No. Simply that popular reporting was emphasizing the carbon-fibre
(which should be very, very stiff) rather than the apparently less
esoteric and much more bendy Kevlar.
>
>Do you really believe that?
Wasn't what I wrote. Interesting thought, though.
> Or do you think that they might have built it
>out of a mix of the two materials, using them in different places for their
>different properties?
>
Seems likely. The problem being to get the design/execution good enough
without building a full-scale replica to test to destruction.
I feel inclined to stick to elderly Wayfarers on the grounds that the
mode and effect of failure are better understood and one is unlikely to
be in the Southern Ocean, the Atlantic or wherever at the time.
--
Peter Thomas
Peter Thomas
<ji...@wandana.demon.co.uk> writes
>
snip
>I have a relative who is a marine architect with unique experience in
>marine use carbon fibre... I finally got to have a chat with him and
>while he would have liked Team Philips to do better, he is not very
>surprised by the result.
>
>He *believes* that the TP hulls used pre-preg cloth and foam core, a
>very bad combination for large structures as the moisture in the foam
>boils off during the cure and almost certainly causes parts of the skin
>to separate from the core.
Hmmmmm.
> The result is not only a serious loss of
>structural integrity but is also invisible.
>
Oooooh ------- fuvg
>He said a lot more but that was the gist of it, he also stressed that he
>does NOT have inside sources for information, so he may be mistaken, But
>he has been very reliable in the past.
>
snip
Definitely not volunteering for that crew, then.
The nice thing about ngs is the way one person's comment or bit of
information sparks something else from another.
--
Peter Thomas
Will Dean
news:Z5vsyIAI...@wandana.demon.co.uk...
> This is not a reply to a specific comment, just a general observation
>
> He *believes* that the TP hulls used pre-preg cloth and foam core, a
> very bad combination for large structures as the moisture in the foam
> boils off during the cure and almost certainly causes parts of the skin
> to separate from the core. The result is not only a serious loss of
> structural integrity but is also invisible.
I think that they do some stuff with vacuum pumps during the cure that's
supposed to avoid this (as well as squashing everything together? Given the
number of things that are made like this now, you'd hope that it ought to be
an avoidable problem. The bit about the problem being invisible is
certainly nasty. I wonder if they could do some kind of inspection to
determine this during build (ultrasonic or x-ray?).
Apparently Aqua Quorum (PG/AT's last boat) had a similar prepreg/foam
construction, so it must be possible to get it right.
>
> He said a lot more but that was the gist of it, he also stressed that he
> does NOT have inside sources for information, so he may be mistaken, But
> he has been very reliable in the past.
He's the first 'expert' that I've heard putting forward a view other than
that AT's calculations must be flawed. Very interesting.
Cheers,
Will
nick
Dear NICK,
Pete Goss today announced that Team Philips would be repaired
without atlering Adrian Thompson's original design concept and on the
start line of The RACE in Barcelona on 31st December 2000.
Read more on our homepage, www.teamphilips.com
Xinara Ltd wrote:
> What does anyone think the chances are it will ever sail again ?
>
> My opinion................. it won't.
> bi...@xinara.u-net.com
> 01270 781000 (day) 0836 555777 (mobile0
--
If life's a waste of time, and times a waste of life, lets all get
wasted and have the time of our lives.
Guy Fawkes
>heres the official info
>
> Dear NICK,
>
> Pete Goss today announced that Team Philips would be repaired
>without atlering Adrian Thompson's original design concept and on the
>start line of The RACE in Barcelona on 31st December 2000.
>
>Read more on our homepage, www.teamphilips.com
going as deck cargo is it???
--
Able was I ere I saw elba
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Will Dean
>
> going as deck cargo is it???
It's good to see that you've stopped pretending to have any useful insight
into this project.
You're definitely more convincing as a comedian than an engineer.
Will
kh
The comedians are all in Team Philips, my friend - a major avoidable
screw-up down to incompetence - no-one to blame, no-one fired, no one
taking responsibility. Just wait for the next piece to fall off. The big
question for the hi-tech sponsors like Sun, Philips etc is just to what
extent any publicity is good publicity.
The question of the skipper's responsibility for crew safety under
whatever set of offshore racing rules these races are run under is
interesting, though. Does anyone know the terms of the insurance for
TP's crew given that usually the skipper is solely responsible for the
decision to start in a race?
In my opinion an independent risk assessment should be made right now of
this craft's capabilities to do what is expected of it.
Will Dean
>
> The comedians are all in Team Philips, my friend - a major avoidable
> screw-up down to incompetence - no-one to blame, no-one fired, no one
> taking responsibility.
In public.
Do you really think that the people responsible for this don't know it?
Just because Pete Goss has not given them a public roasting?
> Just wait for the next piece to fall off.
You hope.
> The big
> question for the hi-tech sponsors like Sun, Philips etc is just to what
> extent any publicity is good publicity.
Sports sponsorship has that risk written though it from end to end. So
what?
> The question of the skipper's responsibility for crew safety under
> whatever set of offshore racing rules these races are run under is
> interesting, though. Does anyone know the terms of the insurance for
> TP's crew given that usually the skipper is solely responsible for the
> decision to start in a race?
No idea. Are you worried about their ability to sue someone?
> In my opinion an independent risk assessment should be made right now of
> this craft's capabilities to do what is expected of it.
You're sure that it hasn't, aren't you...
Anyway, it looks like you want it to break, and you're darn sure that it
will - why bother with the survey?
Will
Guy Fawkes
<{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Guy Fawkes" <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2bjcfsocudjfali0g...@4ax.com...
>>
>> going as deck cargo is it???
>
>It's good to see that you've stopped pretending to have any useful insight
>into this project.
you can't polish a turd
>
>You're definitely more convincing as a comedian than an engineer.
I have sent my application form off to equity..... apparently it will
be dealt with as soon as the backlog of applications from team philips
is sorted...
apparently goss & TP is the wackiest thing they have seen since
michael crawford's "vesuvius"...
Mike J Duckett
> >
> > "Guy Fawkes" <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2bjcfsocudjfali0g...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > going as deck cargo is it???
> >
> > It's good to see that you've stopped pretending to have any useful
insight
> > into this project.
> >
> >
>
>
> The comedians are all in Team Philips, my friend - a major avoidable
> screw-up down to incompetence - no-one to blame, no-one fired, no one
> question for the hi-tech sponsors like Sun, Philips etc is just to what
> extent any publicity is good publicity.
>
> whatever set of offshore racing rules these races are run under is
> interesting, though. Does anyone know the terms of the insurance for
> TP's crew given that usually the skipper is solely responsible for the
> decision to start in a race?
>
> this craft's capabilities to do what is expected of it.
At least the sponsors should insist upon an independant review of the
structure and mods being made.
kh
> > screw-up down to incompetence - no-one to blame, no-one fired, no one
> > taking responsibility.
>
>
> Do you really think that the people responsible for this don't know it?
> Just because Pete Goss has not given them a public roasting?
It's a public project - the dirty linen should be washed in public, too.
It's the secrecy that causes lack of confidence that things have been
fixed. We should be able to read the dialogue with the sponsors over
this incident - after all it's our money as watchers of advertising and
buyers of products that pays for all this.
>
> > Just wait for the next piece to fall off.
>
> You hope.
No, I don't hope at all - I just have no confidence that there's anyone
in TP who could manage a party in a brewery. It's all images with no
evidence of substance.
>
> > The big
> > question for the hi-tech sponsors like Sun, Philips etc is just to what
> > extent any publicity is good publicity.
>
> Sports sponsorship has that risk written though it from end to end. So
> what?
I think sailing may be different.
>
> > The question of the skipper's responsibility for crew safety under
> > whatever set of offshore racing rules these races are run under is
> > interesting, though. Does anyone know the terms of the insurance for
> > TP's crew given that usually the skipper is solely responsible for the
> > decision to start in a race?
>
> No idea. Are you worried about their ability to sue someone?
No, their dependents.
>
> > In my opinion an independent risk assessment should be made right now of
> > this craft's capabilities to do what is expected of it.
>
> You're sure that it hasn't, aren't you...
> Anyway, it looks like you want it to break, and you're darn sure that it
> will - why bother with the survey?
You keep asking questions - I was looking for answers. Put up or shut
up and read what I wrote.
>
> Will
Mike Bees
kh
Thanks for the constructive response - both pages well worth a visit. It
sounds as if it's down to leadership and management skills now in giving
someone ownership and resources to get the build right. Are those skills
in TP?
Simon Waldman
> buyers of products that pays for all this.
you what? Since when do you pay to watch advertising?
--
"He who hesitates is not only lost, but miles from the next exit."
-- Unknown
Jim Champ
>What does anyone think the chances are it will ever sail again ?
It would seem that some people not incolved with the project, and with
bags of experience, think that it is...
http://www.therace.org/english/challengers/indexgossactu.htm
The site interviews Nigel Irens, whose knowledge and experience
exceeds anyone (everyone) in this NG, and who is the designer of a
competing boat in the race...
> So the wave-piercing concept is viable?
> Yes. Eliminating the beam that joins the front tip of the hulls
> is a step in the right direction, because this beam slows down
> conventional catamarans a lot. So when I hear people say that
> Team Philips is "badly designed" or that "she'll never work", I
> don't agree. Earlier this century all aircraft were biplanes,
> and their wings needed all sorts of cables and struts to keep them in
> place. The first maker of a monoplane must also have been told
> that his idea was dangerous. And yet today, all jets are made
> that way. Pete Goss and his team have learnt a tough lesson,
> but I find their aims realistic.
Jim C
Personally I find some of the negativity in this thread appalling.
I've tried new things myself, albeit on a much smaller scale, and
sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I once put a mast
through the foredeck of my dinghy twice in successive days because the
gear I could get wasn't up to the job I wanted to do, as it turned
out. These things happen, but I don't believe it makes me an idiot.
-- NO.UnsolicitedCommercialMassEmail.PLEASE --- remove between ** to reply
jimc@**no.ucme.please.**hjones.cix.co.uk
PyroJames
Steve Firth <%steve%@firthcom.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e93t67.mxrm3i1tw0lr9N%%steve%@firthcom.demon.co.uk...> Whenever you watch ITV/C4 or Sky anything.
>
Or whenever you buy an advertised product.
--
PyroJames
"Dawn Wind of Kirribilli"
Titchmarsh, Essex, UK.
Simon Waldman
>
> Steve Firth <%steve%@firthcom.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1e93t67.mxrm3i1tw0lr9N%%steve%@firthcom.demon.co.uk...
> > Simon Waldman <swal...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since when do you pay to watch advertising?
> >
> > Whenever you watch ITV/C4 or Sky anything.
I don't remember paying for ITV...
> Or whenever you buy an advertised product.
ok, fair enough...
--
""Can humans create life?" enquires SLASHDOT, apparently unaware of
step-by-step instructions on alt.sex.stories"
Will Dean
"Mike Bees" <junk...@not.wel.com> wrote in message
news:8d7g52$bqe$1...@avon.europe.sco.com...
> 2 independents' comments at:
>
> http://www.therace.org/english/challengers/declares/goss/itw_irens.htm
>
> http://www.therace.org/english/challengers/declares/goss/itw_mabire.htm
>
Thanks for those, very interesting. Don't quite know what you meant by
'independant' though!
Will
Will Dean
news:1e93t67.mxrm3i1tw0lr9N%%steve%@firthcom.demon.co.uk...
> Simon Waldman <swal...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Since when do you pay to watch advertising?
>
> Whenever you watch ITV/C4 or Sky anything.
No, that's when to receive the benefit of having paid for it (or being
persuaded to pay for it in the future).
Will
Will Dean
>
> It's a public project - the dirty linen should be washed in public, too.
> It's the secrecy that causes lack of confidence that things have been
> fixed.
You've picked the wrong project to winge about secrecy. Have a look at some
of the rival entries for the race if you want a comparison. The most
remarkable thing about the project is the openness of it all.
>We should be able to read the dialogue with the sponsors over
> this incident - after all it's our money as watchers of advertising and
> buyers of products that pays for all this.
What tosh. It's amazing how people can turn on and off the absurd thesis
that the money of selected large corporations belongs to them. If you don't
like the way their money is spent, don't buy their products. That's the
beginning and the end of your relationship with their money. (Unless you
are a shareholder, in which case you'll have some other routes to express
your views to the management)
>
> No, I don't hope at all - I just have no confidence that there's anyone
> in TP who could manage a party in a brewery.
You ought to look at some of their track records then.
> >
> > Sports sponsorship has that risk written though it from end to end. So
> > what?
>
> I think sailing may be different.
As you don't like me asking you questions, I'm not able to determine what
you meant by that.
> You keep asking questions - I was looking for answers. Put up or shut
> up and read what I wrote.
Yes, Dear.
Will
Guy Fawkes
(Jim Champ) wrote:
>Personally I find some of the negativity in this thread appalling.
>I've tried new things myself, albeit on a much smaller scale, and
>sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I once put a mast
>through the foredeck of my dinghy twice in successive days because the
>gear I could get wasn't up to the job I wanted to do, as it turned
>out. These things happen, but I don't believe it makes me an idiot.
think about it......
1/ HUGE hype regarding the boat.
2/ it wasn't tested in any significant way prior to splash
3/ it splashed and the hulls fail catastrophically in fairly calm seas
4/ nobody is to blame, nobody is fired, we just glue it back together
and try again
5/ the next time it fails it is likely to be just as sudden, and if
you would like to image both bows breaking off at 25 knots
wavepiercing in the forties, the whole boat will pitchpole forwards in
less than 3 seconds, the sticks will come out of her and she will
break up..... no time for a mayday, nothing...
6/ faced with this prospect goss et al are doing the corporate
leveraging the performance paradigm bullshit instead of fessing up
that there is s serious fucking problem which renders the boat unsafe
and unviable for the purpose for which it is intended, and they will
go out on it anyway.
hopefully they will all die a quick death, thus ridding the world of a
few more fools and preventing emergency rescue services from
endangering their own lifes chasing after fools....
I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
despite popular acclaim , anyone who, in the light of the recent
_catastrophic_ failure of TP in comparative millpond conditions, still
insists that everything is rosy in the garden is ANYTHING BUT a
competent seaman.
fools rush in etc...
Ian Johnston
: 2/ it wasn't tested in any significant way prior to splash
No way it could have been, except by sea trials.
: 3/ it splashed and the hulls fail catastrophically in fairly calm seas
: 4/ nobody is to blame, nobody is fired, we just glue it back together
: and try again
I think blood sacrifice to atone for engineering mistakes went out with
the Romans. Since you have absolutely no idea why it failed you also
have absolutely no idea whether any individual deserved to be fired.
: 6/ faced with this prospect goss et al are doing the corporate
: leveraging the performance paradigm bullshit instead of fessing up
: that there is s serious fucking problem which renders the boat unsafe
: and unviable for the purpose for which it is intended, and they will
: go out on it anyway.
Odd, isn't it, that those involved seem to think the project is viable,
whereas you, from the comfort of your armchair, can tell them all exactly
how and why they have it wrong.
: I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
: the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
: southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
Doesn't pull the wings of seagulls, though. Funny, that.
Ian
Guy Fawkes
wrote:
>Guy Fawkes <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: 2/ it wasn't tested in any significant way prior to splash
>
>
>No way it could have been, except by sea trials.
you again, still as thick as shit, strain and dynamic testing is done
as a matter of course on 747 wings, somewhat bigger (but comparative
cost) to team philips.
>: I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
>: the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
>: southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
>
>Doesn't pull the wings of seagulls, though. Funny, that.
this pretty much sums up your engineering knowledge.
I'm surprised you can operate a computer.
--
Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
martinp
> On 15 Apr 2000 20:03:21 GMT, Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Guy Fawkes <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >: 2/ it wasn't tested in any significant way prior to splash
> >
> >
> >No way it could have been, except by sea trials.
>
> you again, still as thick as shit, strain and dynamic testing is done
> as a matter of course on 747 wings, somewhat bigger (but comparative
> cost) to team philips.
equipment used is not available free to builders of catamarans. I don't mean
the equipment to test the material I mean the equipment used to test a
complete wing. The wing(s) which is/are tested to destruction are not the
wings, which are flown. At least two models of the catamaran would have to
be built, the prototype and the delivered one. It's also necessary to have
some sort of realistic model available of the expected stresses and strains.
You don't get much for 5 million UKpounds from the aerospace industry. For
these reason boats are usually over engineered and then tested during sea
trials. The crunch comes when they start to build extreme designs like this
one, minimum weight maximum speed and size. From what I could see on the TV
coverage the bonding between the layers of carbon fibre seemed to have
failed.
Will Dean
>
> hopefully they will all die a quick death, thus ridding the world of a
> few more fools and preventing emergency rescue services from
> endangering their own lifes chasing after fools....
I hope you'd have the humanity to feel embarrased about that remark if they
did die.
>
> I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
> the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
> southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
Pete Goss has done all of the route, some of it against the weather in an
Adrian Thompson boat to fetch a Frenchman from a more conventional boat
which had been unlucky. To suggest that he might under-estimate the
Southern-ocean, or be cavalier about the implications of rescue down there
is absurd,
He's a famously safety-concious sailor, and the safety equipment on board TP
almost certainly exceeds that on most of its competitors.
It's fairly obvious that you know bugger-all about the project or the people
involved - it's a pity that you have to match your ignorance with such
ill-will.
Why not go back to your Faraday cage and play with your compass - you'll at
least learn something.
Will
Guy Fawkes
<{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I hope you'd have the humanity to feel embarrased about that remark if they
>did die.
no, the sea does not forgive assholes, or make apologies.
>
>>
>> I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
>> the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
>> southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
>
>Pete Goss has done all of the route, some of it against the weather in an
>Adrian Thompson boat to fetch a Frenchman from a more conventional boat
>which had been unlucky. To suggest that he might under-estimate the
>Southern-ocean, or be cavalier about the implications of rescue down there
>is absurd,
yet he _is_ being totally cavalier, indulging only in corporate
teamspeak and doing everything in his power to deny the fact that the
hull suffered a CATASTROPHIC failure and did so in conditions that
were practically a flat calm in comparison to what it will be exposed
to.
>
>He's a famously safety-concious sailor, and the safety equipment on board TP
>almost certainly exceeds that on most of its competitors.
he is not famously safety concious, his actions over TP prove this.
and no amount of safety equipment will help if whe snaps in two again
and flips over forewards at 25 knots in the forties
>
>It's fairly obvious that you know bugger-all about the project or the people
>involved - it's a pity that you have to match your ignorance with such
>ill-will.
the boat fell apart like lego in calm seas, so what else is there to
know, that goss is a really splendid chap who loves animals and hugs
trees and buys a copy of the big issue every week..
>Why not go back to your Faraday cage and play with your compass - you'll at
>least learn something.
what i won't be doing is needlessly endanger the lives of others.
something that apparently counts for nothing nowadays.
Surfer!
<guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>what i won't be doing is needlessly endanger the lives of others.
Is he going to march them on at gunpoint disregarding their protests? I
think not. Personally I reckon anyone going across the Atlantic let
alone to 45 South is cracked, but I'm sure they will each be making
their own choice.
>
>something that apparently counts for nothing nowadays.
--
Surfer!
Philip Allum
<guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writessnip
>I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
>the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
>southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
>
have also been there, some of them more than once.
--
Philip Allum
PyroJames
Will Dean <{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:955890071.25358.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> "Guy Fawkes" <guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6bggfsghcvfmrki7i...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
> > southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
>
> Adrian Thompson boat to fetch a Frenchman from a more conventional boat
> which had been unlucky. To suggest that he might under-estimate the
> Southern-ocean, or be cavalier about the implications of rescue down there
> is absurd,
Agreed. It makes me wonder if Guy actually knows the difference between a
30,000 tonner and a yacht. Given some of the other threads he has been
involved in. Has he done any of the 5 Capes in a yacht? I don't think he is
in a position to comment on Goss's qualifications otherwise.
>
> He's a famously safety-concious sailor, and the safety equipment on board
TP
> almost certainly exceeds that on most of its competitors.
>
> It's fairly obvious that you know bugger-all about the project or the
people
> involved - it's a pity that you have to match your ignorance with such
> ill-will.
>
Guy doesn't feel he needs to, he's self proclaimed expert on every thing.
PyroJames
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:00:56 +0100, "Will Dean"
> <{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >I hope you'd have the humanity to feel embarrased about that remark if
they
> >did die.
>
> no, the sea does not forgive assholes, or make apologies.
> >
>
> >Why not go back to your Faraday cage and play with your compass - you'll
at
> >least learn something.
>
> what i won't be doing is needlessly endanger the lives of others.
>
> something that apparently counts for nothing nowadays.
I guess it's hard to endanger lives from behind a computer screen.
> --
>
> Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
>
Guy is not the answer, Guy is the problem.
PyroJames
PyroJames
Will Dean <{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:955800604.7824.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
True. I certainly think that TP is a spectacular boat, and an exciting and
interesting story to follow. Obviously pushing things to the limit in this
field is the way to success, so long as you have a bit of luck _in_addition_
to solid planning. I think TP probably have the later, whether they get the
luck as well, remains to be seen.
IMHO, the round the world racing has got to a similar stage to F1, you have
to have the best machine, driver, and be lucky. Yachts have to be extreme to
be in with a chance of winning, simply because someone in the past was lucky
enough with an extreme boat, to get around. Phillip Jeantot, gave up the
BOC, after winning a few times and then deciding that to be competative, he
had to take too many risks. He felt that he got out at a good time.
To be competative now, is to chance the odds, and this is what TP are doing.
Good luck to them, they have as good a chance as everybody else, but having
said that I don't think any one team probably has better than 75% chance of
getting around.
It will certainly be an entertained and dramatic race what ever the outcome.
PyroJames
Guy Fawkes
<p...@eurogrove.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6bggfsghcvfmrki7i...@4ax.com>, Guy Fawkes
><guy.f...@error404.surfbaud.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 03:08:11 GMT, ji...@no.ucme.please.hjones.cix.co.uk
>>(Jim Champ) wrote:
>>
>snip
>>I have done parts of that route, and no amount of experience around
>>the UK or crossing the pond will prepare you for some of the seas off
>>southern africa, we have had deck gear ripped off 30,000 tonners.
>>
>You seem to be forgetting that Pete Goss and indeed most of his crew
>have also been there, some of them more than once.
which makes his present attitude, considering the boat fell to bits in
relatively millpond conditions, all the more apalling.
if he had never done it I could at least make some allowances for
ignorance.
as it is he is no different to the asshole who attempted to cross the
pond in a dinghy a few years back and had to be rescued over a dozen
times.
--
Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Guy Fawkes
<J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>Agreed. It makes me wonder if Guy actually knows the difference between a
>30,000 tonner and a yacht.
yeah, I know the difference....
> Given some of the other threads he has been
>involved in. Has he done any of the 5 Capes in a yacht?
no, just big stuff, and you think this somehow disqualifies me from
having any useful knowledge whatsoever on the subject?
you will assume instead that people like yourself who have done it
once or twice, or goss who has done it perhaps a few times, know more
about than someone who did it every 28 days simply because you lot
were in a small tub and I was in a big one?
presumably knowledge gained making way against a 12 knot race in the
ras is bloody useless when repeating the same trip in a boat with an 8
knot hull speed, speaking personally, the experience on the big tub
taught me enough not to try beating the race in a small tub.... but
then I'm not an asshole when it comes to safety at sea.
> I don't think he is
>in a position to comment on Goss's qualifications otherwise.
so what commercial tickets does goss hold then?
>Guy doesn't feel he needs to, he's self proclaimed expert on every thing.
don't be such a twat.
for the record.
pulling the sticks out of a boat by pushing it too hard can be done,
it isn't clever but if you're going to push everything (which racers
do) then it can happen.
having the keel fall off again shouldn't happen, but sadly it does on
occassion.
having your hull split and taking on water shouldn't happen, but sadly
it sometimes does (branson et al)
there is absolutely no comparison between any of these scenarios and
the hull literally breaking in two in seas that would not trouble an
open drascombe and in conditions that were at worst 10% of the
EXPECTED design enviornment.
if I build you a lift where the mechanism and cables etc weigh 300kg
and the design cargo capacity of 200kg I have to by law (I may be out
of date on this, safety factor used to be 8) ensure that the cables
etc will carry 4,000kg with no degradation.
if TP was a lift the cables would part at 301kg
a boat is like a sub or spaceship, hull integrity is EVERYTHING, the
moment you lose hull integrity it doesn't matter how much the bloody
thing cost, it is no longer a boat, it is flotsam.
the piece of shit broke in two, not after it hit an iceberg, not after
ramming, not after striking a container, not after going aground, not
after a "100 year wave", not after being vastly overloaded, not after
being pushed to the limits.
it broke in two in moderate seas for no reason other than the hull was
FAR, FAR, FAR too weak. and what do we get, lets not point any
fingers, let just glue it back together without any design changes and
carry on as if nothing happened...
you and all your self-apologetic pals who do nothing but make excuses
for such appalling stupidity and foolhardiness and bad seamanship and
applaud those responsible just make matters worse..
you are a bunch of bloody winch monkeys, you don't have the brains to
be let loose anywhere near a tiller.
--
Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
© Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Will Dean
> >Guy doesn't feel he needs to, he's self proclaimed expert on every thing.
>
> don't be such a twat.
We're getting to you - in a week you've abandoned engineering for comedy and
then comedy for insult. But it's important for you to find yourself.
> for the record.
Did you mean "For the record:"?
> if I build you a lift where the mechanism and cables etc weigh 300kg
> and the design cargo capacity of 200kg I have to by law (I may be out
> of date on this, safety factor used to be 8) ensure that the cables
> etc will carry 4,000kg with no degradation.
>
> if TP was a lift the cables would part at 301kg
If it was an apple, it wouldn't be an orange. They're not designing a car
ferry here - why on earth do you think that the rules necessary for building
an elevator should apply to a boat like this. No-one's going to sea on it
that shouldn't be allowed the freedom to decide their own fate.
> it broke in two in moderate seas for no reason other than the hull was
> FAR, FAR, FAR too weak. and what do we get, lets not point any
> fingers, let just glue it back together without any design changes and
> carry on as if nothing happened...
I don't think you're really following the story closely enough. Whilst the
press releases are careful to clear Adrian Thompson, who's clearly not
responsible for this episode, it's perfectly possible to see that SP Systems
and the build team are making changes in their contributions to the repair.
I'm well aware of shortcomings in the process that got the boat to the
water, and the unseemly rush at the end to meet the Queen's schedule is also
well documented. Pete Goss's style is just not to dash around sacking
people and publically humiliating them - so what?
> you and all your self-apologetic pals who do nothing but make excuses
> for such appalling stupidity and foolhardiness and bad seamanship and
> applaud those responsible just make matters worse..
'Self-apologetic'? You've never heard me apologise for anything about
myself.
Anyway, how have we made things worse?
> you are a bunch of bloody winch monkeys, you don't have the brains to
> be let loose anywhere near a tiller.
Did they not have powered winches and a wheel on the 30,000 million megaton
boat you Captained through the Southern Ocean once a week?
And how's that compass going?
Cheery-bye,
Will
Mark Sempers
>
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:53:52 +0100, "PyroJames"
> <J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
> you will assume instead that people like yourself who have done it
> once or twice, or goss who has done it perhaps a few times, know more
> about than someone who did it every 28 days simply because you lot
> were in a small tub and I was in a big one?
Yes, he (goss) probably does. Big difference between the two,
apples/ornages and all that. I wouldn't presume to question your
judgement in the aforementioned 30k tonner, but I'd eat my hat if you
(Guy) could manage more than 500yards in my little sailing dinghy in
25kts. In fact you wouldn't get off the beach without swimming. Hardly
relevant, but no different to the comparison's being made between open
50's and commercial shipping.
>
> presumably knowledge gained making way against a 12 knot race in the
> ras is bloody useless when repeating the same trip in a boat with an 8
> knot hull speed, speaking personally, the experience on the big tub
> taught me enough not to try beating the race in a small tub.... but
> then I'm not an asshole when it comes to safety at sea.
Sure, when talking about 2 hull speed limited craft. What did it teach
you about tackling the race in a planing open 50, or a 60ft tri? For
that matter, did it teach you to calculate tidal gates more carefully?
>
> > I don't think he is
> >in a position to comment on Goss's qualifications otherwise.
>
> so what commercial tickets does goss hold then?
>
Why does he need commercial tickets? I very much doubt goss has any
intentions in that direction, he's an adventurer, and thank goodness for
that. If no-one had the imagination to take some risks, we'd all still
live in caves.
No doubt commercial, big ship experience shows in Guy's comment &
attitude; fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Just grow up
enough to admit that, just because I may wish to do things differently
to you, neither I, nor Goss, nor the other members of this group are
idiots. To me, your careful, risk free, measured existance would be
terminally awful; to you, my way would probably be equally
incomprehensible. Vive la difference.
- Mark.
PyroJames
Mark Sempers <msem...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:38FB237C...@nortelnetworks.com...
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:53:52 +0100, "PyroJames"
> > <J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > > I don't think he is
> > >in a position to comment on Goss's qualifications otherwise.
> >
> > so what commercial tickets does goss hold then?
> >
> Why does he need commercial tickets? I very much doubt goss has any
> intentions in that direction, he's an adventurer, and thank goodness for
> that. If no-one had the imagination to take some risks, we'd all still
> live in caves.
>
endorsement. This is probably the most suitable qualification that he could
possibly have. Not that I expect it to make any difference to Guy's opinion
of him. After all, Guy has already shown he doesn't believe qualifications
are worth the paper they are written on. God knows what he believes in for
that matter, beyond GF of course.
> No doubt commercial, big ship experience shows in Guy's comment &
> attitude; fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Just grow up
> enough to admit that, just because I may wish to do things differently
> to you, neither I, nor Goss, nor the other members of this group are
> idiots. To me, your careful, risk free, measured existance would be
> terminally awful; to you, my way would probably be equally
> incomprehensible. Vive la difference.
>
Absolutely.
--
PyroJames
Where I like, when I like, in whatever I like to wear.
Guy Fawkes
<J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>> no, the sea does not forgive assholes, or make apologies.
>> >
>I guess you must be landbased then.
f'naar f'naar
>> what i won't be doing is needlessly endanger the lives of others.
>>
>> something that apparently counts for nothing nowadays.
>
>I guess it's hard to endanger lives from behind a computer screen.
shows how much you know.
--
Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Guy Fawkes
<{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Did they not have powered winches and a wheel on the 30,000 million megaton
>boat you Captained through the Southern Ocean once a week?
steam winches, 30k, and i wasn't capn, your sort however frequented
the bilges.
Guy Fawkes
<msem...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>No doubt commercial, big ship experience shows in Guy's comment &
>attitude; fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Just grow up
>enough to admit that, just because I may wish to do things differently
>to you, neither I, nor Goss, nor the other members of this group are
>idiots. To me, your careful, risk free, measured existance would be
>terminally awful; to you, my way would probably be equally
>incomprehensible. Vive la difference.
since you are the first to treat my points / attitude with some
respect, I will answer.
I have nothing against adventurers, and my personal lifestyle has a
far greater element of danger than many of you, to clarify, an
example.
I ride motorcycles, a pastime / lifestyle that many of you will
dismiss as dangerous and silly, fair enough, I am endangering no-one
but myself, and my vehicles are always maintained to a minimum
standard that exceeds the relevant statutes, in this case the MOT.
now, if i were to decide to build a home made motorcycle in boys own
fashion, takes loadsamoney from sun et al, whizz up to mallory park
with the bike on a trailer in preparation for the big race of the year
and intend to compete without ever having tested or proven any aspect
of the bike, plus carrying pillion passengers for the race, and as i
proceed from the paddock to the grid the frame of the bike literally
splits in two I would be regarded, quite correctly, as an asshole....
if I then proceeded to declare that all was sound and the only problem
was a particular tube of superglue that didn't stick, dragged the lot
back to the pits declaring that all it needed was sticking back
together and I would be ready to compete, meanwhile doing the
corporate speak and not pointing fingers, I would, quite rightly, be
regarded as a dangerous asshole and not only be banned from racing but
would also probably having my racing licence (for we have such things)
revoked.
true, none of this compares with riding a bike to and fro work every
day on the queens highway, but the underlying principles are the same.
goss is not some noble eccentric risking his own neck like some modern
day laurence, he fucks up and a whole host of other people's lives are
automatically involved, just like the bunny who tries to row the
atlantic in a bathtub, when the bastard sinks the RNLI, SNSM, nearby
shipping, aircraft, and everyone else and their dog WILL get
involved... nobody says "sod em" and lets assholes drown...
this racing lark is bullshit, I know it isn't comparable with a
passenger ferry, but I see no reason whatsover why there are
effectively no regulations of any kind whatsoever in place to ensure
even minimum sane levels of safety.
you simply will not be allowed to compete in any kind of land race in
an untried vehicle with no brakes, no steering, a rubber chassis and a
monkey at the wheel with no racing permit.
this does not make for boring or dull races, it does stop assholes
killing 3rd parties.
anyone who gets back on TP after such a catastrophic failure with the
full intention of pushing it to the limits in some of the worst seas
the world has to offer under the circumstances goss is contemplating
(eg no rigorous testing) even though there are no fare paying
passengers etceteras is a bloody lunatic.
--
Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
© Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Guy Fawkes
<J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>I _believe_, that Goss actaully has a Ocean Yachtmaster with commercial
>endorsement. This is probably the most suitable qualification that he could
>possibly have.
a submariners ticket will prolly come in most handy.
--
Pussy is not the answer, pussy is the problem...
Š Guy Fawkes - Binary Year 11111010000
Will Dean
>
> I have nothing against adventurers, and my personal lifestyle has a
> far greater element of danger than many of you, to clarify, an
> example.
A minute or so ago, you were wishing a quick death upon them. I'd hate to
see what happens to people who you do 'have something against'.
{ snip lots of stuff about motorbikes }
> ..., I would, quite rightly, be
> regarded as a dangerous asshole and not only be banned from racing but
> would also probably having my racing licence (for we have such things)
> revoked.
The similarity between motorcyclists and Neanderthals has been noted by many
in the past. You're only fueling further speculation.
> this racing lark is bullshit, I know it isn't comparable with a
> passenger ferry, but I see no reason whatsover why there are
> effectively no regulations of any kind whatsoever in place to ensure
> even minimum sane levels of safety.
It's clear, at last, that you're ideologically opposed to racing, which is
fine by me and does provide some context to the more intemperate of your
previous remarks. Indeed, we probably won't disagree on the fundamental
logic of a load of guys building massive boats to sail from Barcelona to
Barcelona (possibly) via the Southern Ocean. That doesn't make them all
idiots though.
> you simply will not be allowed to compete in any kind of land race in
> an untried vehicle with no brakes, no steering, a rubber chassis and a
> monkey at the wheel with no racing permit.
That's a damn shame for those that want to. But you're not likely to kill
another competitor when sailing in a round the world race. Some of us are
glad that the sea is one of the last places one is still free to live or die
by one's own mistakes.
> this does not make for boring or dull races,
Viewers of recent Grand Prix racing might disagree.
> anyone who gets back on TP after such a catastrophic failure with the
> full intention of pushing it to the limits in some of the worst seas
> the world has to offer under the circumstances goss is contemplating
> (eg no rigorous testing) even though there are no fare paying
> passengers etceteras is a bloody lunatic.
I'm sure they're quite happy to make that judgement for themselves. As
you've quite rightly observed, lots of rational people choose to raise the
risk in their lives above the norm - this is not necessarily a sign of
lunacy, just excercise of free will.
Ta-ra,
Will
Tim Thornton - Marine Computing www.marinecomputing.com
Our office gets Press Release faxes from them almost daily during all their
recent problems, and they have been open and factual about things, not just
PR.
They had a problem during construction, they have tracked down the source of
it, and they are concentrating on getting the show back on the road now.
Tim Thornton
Marine Computing International Ltd
t...@marinecomputing.com
http://www.marinecomputing.com
kh <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message news:38F73BE8...@dtn.ntl.com...
> Will Dean wrote:
> >
> > "kh" <k...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:38F6EC2A...@dtn.ntl.com...
> > >
> > > The comedians are all in Team Philips, my friend - a major avoidable
> > > screw-up down to incompetence - no-one to blame, no-one fired, no one
> > > taking responsibility.
> >
> > In public.
> >
> > Do you really think that the people responsible for this don't know it?
> > Just because Pete Goss has not given them a public roasting?
>
> It's a public project - the dirty linen should be washed in public, too.
> It's the secrecy that causes lack of confidence that things have been
> fixed. We should be able to read the dialogue with the sponsors over
> this incident - after all it's our money as watchers of advertising and
> buyers of products that pays for all this.
> >
> > > Just wait for the next piece to fall off.
> >
> > You hope.
>
> No, I don't hope at all - I just have no confidence that there's anyone
> in TP who could manage a party in a brewery. It's all images with no
> evidence of substance.
>
> >
> > > The big
> > > question for the hi-tech sponsors like Sun, Philips etc is just to
what
> > > extent any publicity is good publicity.
> >
> > Sports sponsorship has that risk written though it from end to end. So
> > what?
>
>
> I think sailing may be different.
>
> >
> > > The question of the skipper's responsibility for crew safety under
> > > whatever set of offshore racing rules these races are run under is
> > > interesting, though. Does anyone know the terms of the insurance for
> > > TP's crew given that usually the skipper is solely responsible for the
> > > decision to start in a race?
> >
> > No idea. Are you worried about their ability to sue someone?
>
> No, their dependents.
>
>
> >
> > > In my opinion an independent risk assessment should be made right now
of
> > > this craft's capabilities to do what is expected of it.
> >
> > You're sure that it hasn't, aren't you...
> > Anyway, it looks like you want it to break, and you're darn sure that it
> > will - why bother with the survey?
>
>
> You keep asking questions - I was looking for answers. Put up or shut
> up and read what I wrote.
>
>
> >
> > Will
Simon Waldman
> if I then proceeded to declare that all was sound and the only problem
> was a particular tube of superglue that didn't stick, dragged the lot
> back to the pits declaring that all it needed was sticking back
> together and I would be ready to compete, meanwhile doing the
While I agree with some of your points, and think this covers the whole
concept of ocean racing and who should be risking lives and spending
money to rescue them, I should point out to be fair that standard
corporate-speak these days would be to find a scapegoat... I'm quite
impressed that they'll try again without sacking people...
--
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, England email: swal...@bigfoot.com
http://www.bigfoot.com/~swaldman/
--------------------------------------------------------------
martinp
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:44:22 +0100, "Will Dean"
> <{newsdump}@industrial.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Did they not have powered winches and a wheel on the 30,000 million
megaton
> >boat you Captained through the Southern Ocean once a week?
>
> steam winches, 30k, and i wasn't capn, your sort however frequented
> the bilges.
PyroJames
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:45:16 +0100, Mark Sempers
> <msem...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> >No doubt commercial, big ship experience shows in Guy's comment &
> >attitude; fine, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Just grow up
> >enough to admit that, just because I may wish to do things differently
> >to you, neither I, nor Goss, nor the other members of this group are
> >idiots. To me, your careful, risk free, measured existance would be
> >terminally awful; to you, my way would probably be equally
> >incomprehensible. Vive la difference.
>
> since you are the first to treat my points / attitude with some
> respect, I will answer.
>
> far greater element of danger than many of you, to clarify, an
> example.
You know nothing of my lifestyle and the danger it involves.
> I ride motorcycles, a pastime / lifestyle that many of you will
> dismiss as dangerous and silly, fair enough, I am endangering no-one
> but myself, and my vehicles are always maintained to a minimum
> standard that exceeds the relevant statutes, in this case the MOT.
Motorcycles frequently kill third parties. I would also suggest that they
kill more 3rd parties than any yacht racing does.
> goss is not some noble eccentric risking his own neck like some modern
> day laurence, he fucks up and a whole host of other people's lives are
> automatically involved, just like the bunny who tries to row the
How exactly did Goss get it wrong? He took a vessel on sea trials, it failed
catastropically, and it was brought back. No deaths or injuries.
> this racing lark is bullshit, I know it isn't comparable with a
> passenger ferry, but I see no reason whatsover why there are
> effectively no regulations of any kind whatsoever in place to ensure
> even minimum sane levels of safety.
>
There are safety procedures for most if not all ocean races, or are you
suggesting that every new boat is structurally _tested_ before it is allowed
to compete? Because TP have appeared to have suffered failure through build
not design.
>
> this does not make for boring or dull races, it does stop assholes
> killing 3rd parties.
>
Lots of motorsport is dead boring.
> anyone who gets back on TP after such a catastrophic failure with the
> full intention of pushing it to the limits in some of the worst seas
> the world has to offer under the circumstances goss is contemplating
> (eg no rigorous testing) even though there are no fare paying
> passengers etceteras is a bloody lunatic.
Maybe, but they all know the dangers and I think that is their choice.
Chances are that if it all falls to pieces inthe Southern Ocean, they the
RAN will have to go and pick them up. As far as risking their lives go,
tough, they are in the armed services, risking their lives is part of their
job. It will do them good to have some more real experience, beyond their
normal war games.
Guy Fawkes
<swal...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>While I agree with some of your points, and think this covers the whole
>concept of ocean racing and who should be risking lives and spending
>money to rescue them, I should point out to be fair that standard
>corporate-speak these days would be to find a scapegoat... I'm quite
>impressed that they'll try again without sacking people...
in general a fair comment, but when such a major catastrophe befalls
them to continue with NOTHING changed is the opposite extreme.
Guy Fawkes
<J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I have nothing against adventurers, and my personal lifestyle has a
>> far greater element of danger than many of you, to clarify, an
>> example.
>
>You know nothing of my lifestyle and the danger it involves.
hey, _you_ started this, so don't complain if I direct some of it
back, -you- have no idea about my lifestyle.
>
>> I ride motorcycles, a pastime / lifestyle that many of you will
>> dismiss as dangerous and silly, fair enough, I am endangering no-one
>> but myself, and my vehicles are always maintained to a minimum
>> standard that exceeds the relevant statutes, in this case the MOT.
>
>Motorcycles frequently kill third parties. I would also suggest that they
>kill more 3rd parties than any yacht racing does.
since you have been keen to have a go at me for quoring stuff "off the
cuff" I am sure you will offer proof for that unsubstantiated and
erroneous assumption...
>How exactly did Goss get it wrong? He took a vessel on sea trials, it failed
>catastropically, and it was brought back. No deaths or injuries.
there should always be a middle stage, not splash and then straight
into a 3000 mile trip, and he has it wrong by not learning and
intending to start again with no changes.
>There are safety procedures for most if not all ocean races, or are you
>suggesting that every new boat is structurally _tested_ before it is allowed
>to compete?
absolutely, it is called "scrutineering"
>Because TP have appeared to have suffered failure through build
>not design.
the very design is at fault because it specifies a non-standard
material.
>Lots of motorsport is dead boring.
and all long distance sailing racing is about as interesting as
cricket.
>Maybe, but they all know the dangers and I think that is their choice.
agreed, but the captain of any vessel always has a higher moral
perspective, or should have.
>Chances are that if it all falls to pieces inthe Southern Ocean, they the
>RAN will have to go and pick them up. As far as risking their lives go,
>tough, they are in the armed services, risking their lives is part of their
>job. It will do them good to have some more real experience, beyond their
>normal war games.
and you complain about my attitude???
how about of it falls apart off spain where the crews will be national
service conscripts?
PyroJames
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:42:20 +0100, "PyroJames"
> <J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> I have nothing against adventurers, and my personal lifestyle has a
> >> far greater element of danger than many of you, to clarify, an
> >> example.
> >
> >You know nothing of my lifestyle and the danger it involves.
>
> hey, _you_ started this, so don't complain if I direct some of it
> back, -you- have no idea about my lifestyle.
>
you who started claiming that people here knew nothing, without knowing
anything about them beyond their posts. I agree that some of the stuff that
gets posted is inaccurate, but that doesn't make the poster a total idiot.
> >
> >Motorcycles frequently kill third parties. I would also suggest that they
> >kill more 3rd parties than any yacht racing does.
>
> since you have been keen to have a go at me for quoring stuff "off the
> cuff" I am sure you will offer proof for that unsubstantiated and
> erroneous assumption...
*grin* Ah well. No I haven't any reference for you, but given a couple of
weeks searching through some newspapers I'm sure I could find a few third
party deaths at the hands of motorcyclists. I would take me longer to find
some for yachting. And I mean 3rd party, meaning someone killed who is not
involved as pillion or crew. Which for yachting, would mean a death from
collision, or death of a rescuer.
> >How exactly did Goss get it wrong? He took a vessel on sea trials, it
failed
> >catastropically, and it was brought back. No deaths or injuries.
>
> there should always be a middle stage, not splash and then straight
> into a 3000 mile trip, and he has it wrong by not learning and
> intending to start again with no changes.
>
Was the voyage he was on a proposed 3000 miler? As he was only days into sea
trials, I thought he was just mucking around off here. The glue back
together aspect of it would certainly concern me if I was crew. I am still
not convinced that the design is flawed however, although the integrity of
the vessel may be.
>
>
> >There are safety procedures for most if not all ocean races, or are you
> >suggesting that every new boat is structurally _tested_ before it is
allowed
> >to compete?
>
> absolutely, it is called "scrutineering"
>
I doubt that any amount of scrutineering would have detected the type of
fault that TP had.
> >Because TP have appeared to have suffered failure through build
> >not design.
>
> the very design is at fault because it specifies a non-standard
> material.
Carbon fibre is no longer a non-standard material. This is an extension of
the technique and it is pushing the limits. However, it does seem odd to me,
that they now say, "oh yes, this type of delamination can occur and we can
fix it." If it was know to occur, they _should_ have checked for it before
it fell apart.
>
> >Lots of motorsport is dead boring.
>
> and all long distance sailing racing is about as interesting as
> cricket.
Agreed. I follow each about as much as the other. Watch them never, see the
results on the news occaisionally. I am not a fan of ocean racing. I did it
once and that was enough. I don't actually think it promotes good
seamanship, IMHO. But I am not worried if others want to do it, so long as
they don't want me to pick up the pieces. I don't think motorsport promotes
good driving either for that matter.
> >Maybe, but they all know the dangers and I think that is their choice.
>
> agreed, but the captain of any vessel always has a higher moral
> perspective, or should have.
He should keep them informed of the dangers as he sees them. If he keeps
them in the dark, then he is failing in his duty. I don't see Goss as having
failed here.
>
> >Chances are that if it all falls to pieces inthe Southern Ocean, they the
> >RAN will have to go and pick them up. As far as risking their lives go,
> >tough, they are in the armed services, risking their lives is part of
their
> >job. It will do them good to have some more real experience, beyond their
> >normal war games.
>
> and you complain about my attitude???
>
Oh occaisionally, you know. :)
> how about of it falls apart off spain where the crews will be national
> service conscripts?
>
That's government policy, do you think the conscripts should just be in the
forces and not exposed to any danger?
--
PyroJames
In a surprisingly relaxed mode this pm.
Guy Fawkes
<J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>*grin* Ah well. No I haven't any reference for you, but given a couple of
>weeks searching through some newspapers I'm sure I could find a few third
>party deaths at the hands of motorcyclists.
like to see you try....
> I would take me longer to find
>some for yachting. And I mean 3rd party, meaning someone killed who is not
>involved as pillion or crew. Which for yachting, would mean a death from
>collision, or death of a rescuer.
if you expand it "slightly" and include propeller injuries then it
mimics exactly a discussion we had with an insurance IT bod a few
months back, he was one of those who could tell you that statistically
from their records you were 13% more likely to be rear ended at the
lights if your car was red than if it was white, etceteras....
according to him, as we were discussing / comparing bikes and boats,
both recreational and racing, while you were more likely to be killed
*on* a bike, you were more likely to be injured *on* a boat (and
injuries are generally more expensive than death) and the insurance
companies would like nothing more than for boats to have compulsory
MOT and insurance exactly the same as motor vehicles... they have done
projected policy costs based on risks and the TP component of the
insurance would exceed that of the motorcycle.
for instance, my motorcycle insurance is less than my car insurance,
in fact it's about 1/3rd of my car policy, yet it is a "better"
policy...
reason, i am statistically less likely to injure a 3rd party on my
bike than when in my car.
>Was the voyage he was on a proposed 3000 miler? As he was only days into sea
>trials, I thought he was just mucking around off here.
he had done 1000 miles, a not inconsiderable distance.
>The glue back
>together aspect of it would certainly concern me if I was crew. I am still
>not convinced that the design is flawed however, although the integrity of
>the vessel may be.
the same thing, see below.
>> absolutely, it is called "scrutineering"
>>
>I doubt that any amount of scrutineering would have detected the type of
>fault that TP had.
it would, because certain materials are certified for certain uses.
>Carbon fibre is no longer a non-standard material. This is an extension of
>the technique and it is pushing the limits.
i beg to differ, carbon fibre is no longer a non standard material for
certain applications, an example being F1 car body components and
certain airframe components. It is however very much non-standard for
boat hulls, car bodies, masts, outboard motors...
> However, it does seem odd to me,
>that they now say, "oh yes, this type of delamination can occur and we can
>fix it." If it was know to occur, they _should_ have checked for it before
>it fell apart.
particularly as _everyone_ else who has previously ventured into
carbon fibre boat hulls has had to overcome this very same problem.
Add in the unique stresses imposed by a wave piercing cat of unusually
large proportions.....
you are starting to see why I blame the designer.
_he_ specified carbon fibre as the build material, it is up to every
designer to consider most carefully the implications and restrictions
of each material _before_ drawing a single line.
every other designer does this, we will use x grade of marine ply of x
thickness with a rib spacing of x etc to achieve a hull of desired
integrity...
this plonker clearly started from the opposite end, we will build a
hull x big and we will make it a wave piercing cat cos it will be easy
to sponsor cos it's so radical and everything else and the equations
say the bare hull cannot weigh more than 7 tons so THIS denotes that
the three key structural components of the hull will be carbon fibre,
cardboard and void.
materials science is a precise science, everybody and his dog can log
onto a website and sooner or later find all the specs of any given
materials.
CAD/CAM is also a precise science _DIMENSIONALLY_ in that you can
design anything, apply a texture, rotate it in 3d etc, but this is
_just_ shape and form, it has nothing to do with strength and stress.
FEMS is also a pretty precise science, it works lovely on
theoretically perfect sheets of material, say steel, and how they
deform under load, for instance a car impacting a wall.
come on down to the REAL world and every mechanic who has ever put a
hacksaw or a flame through material will tell you there are anomalies
throughout.
come on down again to the real world and there is nobody in the world
who can _accurately_ model a true brine wave breaking around a
spondon.
come on down to the real world and there are thousands of people with
a learned and intuitive feel for what works and what doesn't, so what
does team philips do, ignore all this, produce a dimensionally perfect
design using theoretically perfect materials and joints and model the
loads and stresses with theoretical models of theoretical waves
(incidentally also made of theoretically perfect and molecularly
uniform water) and pronounce it fit for the sea.
I have had a LOAD of flak over this, but I am an engineer, and a good
one, and it is a fact that it costs more to do a *truly accurate* and
correct analysis of stresses and strengths and loadings etc in
computer modelling than it costs in real life.
this is a FACT and it is borne out by the fact that TP did indeed
break in two at sea.
their computer models did not predict this, simply because their
computer models were not sophisticated enough, the computer models
assume that the hull was of uniform consistency and all joints were
100%...
however, a hydrailuc test bed would detect 100% of all such anomalies
100% of the time.
the computer modelling, being physically unrelated to the actual
product, will detect 0% of all such anomalies 100% of the time.
I have designed things, and the designers job does NOT end at a set of
scale drawings and formulae, that is and always has been the easy bit
of design, the real work is always in the implementation, _THIS_ is
what ensures that the translation from draughting table to finished
product in service is a relatively smooth one, and it is this very
process that has been dropped by the wayside in the past 20 years in
favour of college boys with engineering degrees who literally could
not identify the size and thread of a stud in service and yet have the
gall to think they know enough to specify said component.
>Agreed. I follow each about as much as the other. Watch them never, see the
>results on the news occaisionally. I am not a fan of ocean racing. I did it
>once and that was enough. I don't actually think it promotes good
>seamanship, IMHO. But I am not worried if others want to do it, so long as
>they don't want me to pick up the pieces. I don't think motorsport promotes
>good driving either for that matter.
sure, but just as motorsport *does* promote good safety (or how do you
fancy your chances of surviving a 180 mph spill in an escort?) ocean
(and other marine) racing *should* promote good safety and the role of
the skipper.
I do not see mirror / topper dinghy races being held in shark infested
seas with everyone showering in blood and no safety boats, I *do* see
a lot of effort spent making it a _safe_ and enjoyable sport.
>He should keep them informed of the dangers as he sees them. If he keeps
>them in the dark, then he is failing in his duty. I don't see Goss as having
>failed here.
Perhaps it's a question of perspective, having been a commercial
engineer if I was in goss's shoes, or more accurately those of the
ships engineer, I would refuse him permission to sail until I was
satisfied that adequate remedial action had been taken.
given the _catastrophic_ nature of the current failure and the
relatively calm conditions that promoted it I would take some
satisfying, a few tubes of glue would not be adequate.
please note, I am all for liberty and freedom, go out and do anything
you like, if goss was singlehanding good luck to him.
my objection is that in his role as a captain with responsobilities to
a crew his behaviour is nothing short of apalling, and is an apalling
example to every other sailor out there...
we have seen in this thread huge amounts of kudos and respect being
given to goss, this means he has a DUTY, not just to his crew, but to
all other sailors, to behave responsibly.
he was NOT a hero for turning back and saving a life, that is the
"law" of the sea, he did it and praise is due, well done... this one
act does not give him carte blanche to go out and act like an asshole
now.
if he wants this sort of publicity and wants to compete in real
cutting edge technology yacht racing he is enough of a self publicist
to launch a single handed RTW and he can set off in a parachute driven
100 metre balsa wood hydrofoil for all I care.
>PyroJames
>In a surprisingly relaxed mode this pm.
a pleasant change, reflected I trust in my own tone of response.
Mark Sempers
Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:45:16 +0100, Mark Sempers
> <msem...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>
> since you are the first to treat my points / attitude with some
> respect, I will answer.
>
> I have nothing against adventurers, and my personal lifestyle has a
> far greater element of danger than many of you, to clarify, an
> example.
>
> I ride motorcycles, a pastime / lifestyle that many of you will
> dismiss as dangerous and silly, fair enough, I am endangering no-one
> but myself, and my vehicles are always maintained to a minimum
> standard that exceeds the relevant statutes, in this case the MOT.
>
> now, if i were to decide to build a home made motorcycle in boys own
> fashion, takes loadsamoney from sun et al, whizz up to mallory park
> with the bike on a trailer in preparation for the big race of the year
> and intend to compete without ever having tested or proven any aspect
> of the bike, plus carrying pillion passengers for the race, and as i
> proceed from the paddock to the grid the frame of the bike literally
> splits in two I would be regarded, quite correctly, as an asshole....
In the interests of brevity, I will cut the rest of the post. I think
we're arguing from fundamentaly different standpoints. I don't find your
analogy relevant; to pick an automotive analogy, I'd look to the Thrust
2 Project. Groundbreaking: yes (rear wheel steering), Dangerous-
definately, and not without it's problems, but eventually successful. I
really don't believe that Goss/Thompson's efforts are that half baked.
The problem they've suffered is a common one. I belive aerospace (and
F1) overcome this particular difficulty by using very high pressures in
the autoclave. Of course, putting something the size of TP in a high
pressure autoclave may be difficult / impossible. I seem to recollect
reading somewhere that they are to move to a more conventional frame
type reinforcement of the hull. Perhaps this is why.
In answer to posts which have claimed carbon is not a mainstream
material in boats, it certainly is in the small boat world. My 3,000
quid dinghy has a carbon mast that is significantly lighter, and more
robust than any aluminium, or wood alternative. More recent dinghies
have been made entirely of carbon fibre.
Guy, Personaly, I'd avoid your kind danger - it's not the motorbike
that's dangerous, it's the other homocidal maniacs on the road. Someone
pulls out into you, and you're the one that gets hurt. No Thanks!
I'm going to bow out of this as there seems to be a hardcore determined
to have an arguament. As I see it, there has been a bit of an oversight
:) Lesson lesson learned, this is what sea trials are for, though one
would have hoped it had been noticed earlier. The design will now move
on.
- Mark.
Will Dean
>
> i beg to differ, carbon fibre is no longer a non standard material for
> certain applications, an example being F1 car body components and
> certain airframe components. It is however very much non-standard for
> boat hulls, car bodies, masts, outboard motors...
I daresay we'll argue over the meaning of the word 'standard', but _lots_ of
carbon boats have been built, raced successful, broken, mended, etc.
Several AT carbon boat designs are in production for commercial/military
uses - they've got thousands and thousands of miles behind them in extreme
situations.
> particularly as _everyone_ else who has previously ventured into
> carbon fibre boat hulls has had to overcome this very same problem.
> Add in the unique stresses imposed by a wave piercing cat of unusually
> large proportions.....
>
> you are starting to see why I blame the designer.
Why? He didn't glue it together wrongly. Nor, if by 'the designer' you mean
Adrian, did he specify the lay-up.
> _he_ specified carbon fibre as the build material, it is up to every
> designer to consider most carefully the implications and restrictions
> of each material _before_ drawing a single line.
>
> every other designer does this, we will use x grade of marine ply of x
> thickness with a rib spacing of x etc to achieve a hull of desired
> integrity...
This is not what happened on this boat. People specialising in the
materials did that part of the design.
> this plonker clearly started from the opposite end, we will build a
> hull x big and we will make it a wave piercing cat cos it will be easy
> to sponsor cos it's so radical and everything else and the equations
> say the bare hull cannot weigh more than 7 tons so THIS denotes that
> the three key structural components of the hull will be carbon fibre,
> cardboard and void.
'this plonker' - Adrian Thompson. Now I know you're lost.
> materials science is a precise science, everybody and his dog can log
> onto a website and sooner or later find all the specs of any given
> materials.
I expect that's all he does.
> CAD/CAM is also a precise science _DIMENSIONALLY_ in that you can
> design anything, apply a texture, rotate it in 3d etc, but this is
> _just_ shape and form, it has nothing to do with strength and stress.
Shape is nothing to do with strength. Must remind my hens to go back to
laying square eggs. So much easier to pack.
> come on down to the real world and there are thousands of people with
> a learned and intuitive feel for what works and what doesn't, so what
> does team philips do, ignore all this, produce a dimensionally perfect
> design using theoretically perfect materials and joints and model the
> loads and stresses with theoretical models of theoretical waves
> (incidentally also made of theoretically perfect and molecularly
> uniform water) and pronounce it fit for the sea.
Unlike many designers at this level, AT has built lots of these sort of
boats with his own hands. His fan club like to observe that some of his
most successful boats have been both designed and built by him. The idea
that he's some analysis-mad professor in an ivory tower is so diametrically
opposite from the truth that it suggests that you're returning to comedy.
> I have had a LOAD of flak over this, but I am an engineer, and a good
> one, and it is a fact that it costs more to do a *truly accurate* and
> correct analysis of stresses and strengths and loadings etc in
> computer modelling than it costs in real life.
>
> this is a FACT and it is borne out by the fact that TP did indeed
> break in two at sea.
What's that got to do with the analysis or not of the design?
> however, a hydrailuc test bed would detect 100% of all such anomalies
> 100% of the time.
I'm sure that you're right in this case. It couldn't possibly detect all
design failures, certainly not without being destructive.
> the computer modelling, being physically unrelated to the actual
> product, will detect 0% of all such anomalies 100% of the time.
As would any other kind of analysis. e.g. scale tank testing.
> Perhaps it's a question of perspective, having been a commercial
> engineer if I was in goss's shoes, or more accurately those of the
> ships engineer, I would refuse him permission to sail until I was
> satisfied that adequate remedial action had been taken.
'refuse him permission'? A.T. has been employed by his friend to design him
a boat. It's up to the owner of the boat if he wants to go to sea in it,
having been responsible for the build-team himself. There is not the
slightest possiblity that Adrian would not have made it extremely well-known
to Goss if he felt there was a problem with the design.
> he was NOT a hero for turning back and saving a life, that is the
> "law" of the sea, he did it and praise is due, well done... this one
> act does not give him carte blanche to go out and act like an asshole
> now.
You know, you ought to use that paragraph as your .sig.
> a pleasant change, reflected I trust in my own tone of response.
Hmm. You've said Goss is an asshole, AT is college-boy and a plonker.
Keep-up the relaxed attitude.
Will
PyroJames
> <J.Ke...@SPAMcranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >*grin* Ah well. No I haven't any reference for you, but given a couple of
> >weeks searching through some newspapers I'm sure I could find a few third
> >party deaths at the hands of motorcyclists.
>
> like to see you try....
plus driver. I wouldn't actually count the pillion as a 3rd party as they
were obviously doing stupid things. ie racing or some such.
www.herald-review.com/03/tusc0806-9.html
Your turn for some yachting deaths. :)
> > I would take me longer to find
> >some for yachting. And I mean 3rd party, meaning someone killed who is
not
> >involved as pillion or crew. Which for yachting, would mean a death from
> >collision, or death of a rescuer.
>
> if you expand it "slightly" and include propeller injuries then it
> mimics exactly a discussion we had with an insurance IT bod a few
> months back, he was one of those who could tell you that statistically
> from their records you were 13% more likely to be rear ended at the
> lights if your car was red than if it was white, etceteras....
>
> according to him, as we were discussing / comparing bikes and boats,
> both recreational and racing, while you were more likely to be killed
> *on* a bike, you were more likely to be injured *on* a boat (and
> injuries are generally more expensive than death) and the insurance
> companies would like nothing more than for boats to have compulsory
> MOT and insurance exactly the same as motor vehicles... they have done
> projected policy costs based on risks and the TP component of the
> insurance would exceed that of the motorcycle.
>
> for instance, my motorcycle insurance is less than my car insurance,
> in fact it's about 1/3rd of my car policy, yet it is a "better"
> policy...
>
> reason, i am statistically less likely to injure a 3rd party on my
> bike than when in my car.
>
I wouldn't disagree with that. Given that (gross generalisation) motorcycle
riders are generally more aware of those around them than cars. I suspect
this has a lot to do with self preservation. But I still believe 3rd party
deaths through sailing, and I would exclude prop deaths/injury because I
believe a high proportion of this is power boat derived. I would agree with
licensing for power boaters. In Oz, anyone skippering a power driven vessel
over 8 knots had to be licenced. Sailing, I think has much lower, and more
acceptable risks. From memory, and I can check this tonight, my 3rd party
component of the boat policyis of the order of Ł20, of the car Ł200.
>
> >Was the voyage he was on a proposed 3000 miler? As he was only days into
sea
> >trials, I thought he was just mucking around off here.
>
> he had done 1000 miles, a not inconsiderable distance.
>
But he wasn't a thousnad miles offshore, which would have been
irresponsible.
> i beg to differ, carbon fibre is no longer a non standard material for
> certain applications, an example being F1 car body components and
> certain airframe components. It is however very much non-standard for
> boat hulls, car bodies, masts, outboard motors...
But it is being used for these applications more and more. TP are just
trying to extend it as far as possible.
> > However, it does seem odd to me,
> >that they now say, "oh yes, this type of delamination can occur and we
can
> >fix it." If it was know to occur, they _should_ have checked for it
before
> >it fell apart.
>
> particularly as _everyone_ else who has previously ventured into
> carbon fibre boat hulls has had to overcome this very same problem.
> Add in the unique stresses imposed by a wave piercing cat of unusually
> large proportions.....
>
> you are starting to see why I blame the designer.
OK, a lack of dialogue between designer and manufacturer, regarding what
exactly was or wasn't checked, and who failed to ensure the QA I don't know.
I still don't see the concept as flawed.
>
> _he_ specified carbon fibre as the build material, it is up to every
> designer to consider most carefully the implications and restrictions
> of each material _before_ drawing a single line.
>
Carbon fibre isn't necessarily inappropriate for this job. There would be no
more trouble modelling it, than there would be for a timber boat. Tiomber
has the advantage that people have been using for hundreds of years and
there is an empirical knowledge base. This doesn't exist for CF yet. TP is
part of that empirical developement.
>
> materials science is a precise science, everybody and his dog can log
> onto a website and sooner or later find all the specs of any given
> materials.
>
Mat science isn't precise. Ask anyone who is involved with it. Half of the
analysis is statistical.
> CAD/CAM is also a precise science _DIMENSIONALLY_ in that you can
> design anything, apply a texture, rotate it in 3d etc, but this is
> _just_ shape and form, it has nothing to do with strength and stress.
>
> FEMS is also a pretty precise science, it works lovely on
> theoretically perfect sheets of material, say steel, and how they
> deform under load, for instance a car impacting a wall.
>
FEA etc, is OK. But like any of those elemental analysis packages, boundary
conditions are everything, and can be difficult/impossible to determine.
Particularly with turbulence.
> come on down to the real world and there are thousands of people with
> a learned and intuitive feel for what works and what doesn't, so what
> does team philips do, ignore all this, produce a dimensionally perfect
> design using theoretically perfect materials and joints and model the
> loads and stresses with theoretical models of theoretical waves
> (incidentally also made of theoretically perfect and molecularly
> uniform water) and pronounce it fit for the sea.
Come on Guy, you can't know what assumptions were made inthe design process.
> I have had a LOAD of flak over this, but I am an engineer, and a good
> one, and it is a fact that it costs more to do a *truly accurate* and
> correct analysis of stresses and strengths and loadings etc in
> computer modelling than it costs in real life.
The only way you can test TP is in the water. As you said yourself, you
can't model the sea forces accurately. So no matter what kind of testing you
want to do, sea trials are the only possibility to do it correctly. Your
simply couldn't do a correct analysis of TP in anyway, computer of dynamic
testing. The knowledge of the wave/hull interaction are not known well
enough.
>
> this is a FACT and it is borne out by the fact that TP did indeed
> break in two at sea.
>
> their computer models did not predict this, simply because their
> computer models were not sophisticated enough, the computer models
> assume that the hull was of uniform consistency and all joints were
> 100%...
You don't _know_ this, but I suspect it certainly assumed that they were
better than they actually were.
>
> however, a hydrailuc test bed would detect 100% of all such anomalies
> 100% of the time.
>
But you can't know that your hydraulic test bed will simulate the sea
accurately, so I don't see it as an appropriate test.
> the computer modelling, being physically unrelated to the actual
> product, will detect 0% of all such anomalies 100% of the time.
>
I think you will like this. "Computer modelling is like masturbation, if you
do it long enough, you begin to think that it is the real thing." Actually
told to me by a CFD engineer.
> I have designed things, and the designers job does NOT end at a set of
> scale drawings and formulae, that is and always has been the easy bit
> of design, the real work is always in the implementation, _THIS_ is
> what ensures that the translation from draughting table to finished
> product in service is a relatively smooth one, and it is this very
> process that has been dropped by the wayside in the past 20 years in
> favour of college boys with engineering degrees who literally could
> not identify the size and thread of a stud in service and yet have the
> gall to think they know enough to specify said component.
They have to start somewhere, but someone should be checking over their
shoulder until they have the experience they need. I am an engineer as well,
(if you hadn't guessed), and a research one at that. I spend most of my time
in the lab, designing, manufacturing and commissioning experiments, to a
large part in consultancy for industry. I have to work with my designs, I
have to get them right within budget, because I need to produce results for
the money. I think that AT is also working with his design, it has problems,
and he is assisting insorting them out. I don't feel that he is an idiot
because it fell apart, (although if one of mine had failed so badly, I would
be to pleased.)
> >He should keep them informed of the dangers as he sees them. If he keeps
> >them in the dark, then he is failing in his duty. I don't see Goss as
having
> >failed here.
>
> Perhaps it's a question of perspective, having been a commercial
> engineer if I was in goss's shoes, or more accurately those of the
> ships engineer, I would refuse him permission to sail until I was
> satisfied that adequate remedial action had been taken.
>
> given the _catastrophic_ nature of the current failure and the
> relatively calm conditions that promoted it I would take some
> satisfying, a few tubes of glue would not be adequate.
I am sure this is on his mind. I am sure he won't sail again until he is
convinced that the boat is OK. It's his life on the line as well.
> please note, I am all for liberty and freedom, go out and do anything
> you like, if goss was singlehanding good luck to him.
I would bet that if the others on TP had the opportunity to single hand the
race they would as well, so weather Goss was SH or not, makes no difference.
I expect thatthe crew are quite aware of the risks.
> a pleasant change, reflected I trust in my own tone of response.
Indeed.
PyroJames.
martinp
> the very design is at fault because it specifies a non-standard
> material.
LOL! you are a joker.