Quote:
From Jim Cate's post above....Micah, you seem bound and determined to draw this discussion into diverse pathways...
|
Yes; more on that in a bit. There's more to a
boat than ultimate strength, especially when nobody builds these theoretical hulls. Even if someone did, they still have serious drawbacks; all materials do. The OP modified his question from whales, to impacts in general. I wish he'd been more careful in his choice of thread title...it is all encompassing, rather than solely about impacts. Let's run with it, and the question will be dead for the next few months until it all kicks off again from scratch.
Quote:
But it is interesting (at least to me) that the only boat that we personally have known that succumbed to a fire was... a steelie!
In this case, a small engine room fire that melted several hoses,the through hull valves for which were not accessible due to the fire... and the boat sank.
|
The hoses weren't
steel, were they? I've seen a frp boat burn, it was spectacular; all the way to the waterline. It was also insured, so actually just an upgrade for the
commercial owners. It happened in harbour, nobody was hurt (apart from a soaking in pristine eau-de-port for the
skipper who wisely chose MOB).
Quote:
Further, now delving into mythology, I have never heard of a frp boat sinking due to osmosis blisters, but I have heard of steel boats sinking because of corroded plates.
|
No,
blisters by themselves won't sink a boat quickly on their own....but frp owners don't like them, and spend considerable
money to fix them, because they do weaken the structure. If they get bad enough, the boat is a writeoff, totally uneconomical to fix. The two steel horror stories in this thread were both fixed, by amateurs. There is enough evidence quoted already that shows proper construction and
maintenance scotches the
corrosion myth. Neglect will kill any boat.
Quote:
The point is that by cherry picking specific cases, one can "prove" almost any hypothesis one wants. One can build to any given required strength in most any medium... I think we can all agree to that, can't we?
|
Yes, one could also build in gold, marshmallow, or papier-maché.
Quote:
So, in the long run, the choice of materials should not be driven solely by any one parameter.
|
Careful, you don't want to get accused of drawing the discussion into diverse pathways.
Quote:
The wise builder will integrate factors like costs of materials, strength and availability of materials, skills of fabricators, ease of repair in the environment proposed for usage, even aesthetics in making the choice.
|
Not to mention fatigue and failure behaviour, and how the materials display signs of nearing their limits. Aesthetics is one we haven't hit yet.
Quote:
The blind trumpeting of ideological beliefs (steel is strongest...) is not a good position for a NA, be he a pro or an amateur.
|
I agree. Who, by the way, is trumpeting steel is strongest? Or composite? Go back and look. Certainly not me. What I will maintain, however, is that steel's advantages suit a certain kind of application, determined by an individual's requirements. I'd like for people to choose the best kind of boat for them, and to do so safely. Steel gets a bad rap from many poorly built and maintained privately built hulls over the years...but one can say the same for many pro-built frp's, if one ignores the many successes in both materials.
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1888121
Quote:
And the bloody whales better watch out...
|
Agree, they've suffered enough. So have docks,
reefs, containers,
logs and other boats. Stop colliding! If you can't, deal with it, wherever and wherever it happens. Let's get to talking about aesthetics next....the
safety aspect seems to have migrated to another thread. I've pictures of some very pretty hulls you wouldn't think were steel....they're not all hard chine or hungry horses. Mind you, the workboat scruffy look might have the advantage of discouraging thieves....