[PUP] PPM in general - what should it be ?

[2elnav at netbistro.com]

Hannu
I think you missed the mark on a few points. You made the point of saying:
> Builders build what the market wants. The market does not want safe,
> reliable, dependable, cheap-to-maintain items. It *does not*.

WRONG!  People, especially the wives, do want "safe reliable and dependable".
Unfortunately their perception of what provides such characteristics may
not be based on thousands of sea miles of their own personal experience.
Instead they rely on marketing hype.

The people who can afford Nordhavns are accustomed to a certain level of
creature comfort ashore and rightfully expect to  have the same in a
permanent home afloat. And why shouldn't they?

Something else to remember. The production boat that is launched today,
was designed two or three years ago. Conditions have changed, technology
has also changed and even people's financial circumstances have changed.
It is therefore hard to have even a new boat meet the latest criteria.

Your repeated use of the word "cheap" and derivatives thereof may in fact
convey the wrong impression. All too often we now see "cheap" consumer
goods that lack quality and reflect the consumer concept of disposable
goods. In the marine world the better choice may well be the more
expensive but totally reliable product that lack in glamor and glitz but
never lets you down.
Sometimes the more expensive item gives longer and better service over a
decade; thus providing a lower total service life cost than the cheap
product.

You wrote:
> This makes a PPM;
> -------------------------------------------------
> 6:1 L/W ratio
> Heavy
> Standardisation in mechanical engineering.
> Steel
> Redundancy in mechanical aspects as much as practical
> All components are extremely fit for purpose and chosen for long-term
> reliability and capacity


REPLY
I think several list members can and might still object to just about
every point you list with perhaps the one about redundancy in mechanical
aspects.

 6:1  L/W suggest that only monohulls are acceptable for passagemaking.
Multi hulls have been making trans oceanic voyages for thousands of
years. More recently several motor multi hulls have made trans oceanic
trips in comfort and safety. But they do not fit the 6:1 ratio.

"Heavy" again suggest only over built heavy displacement hulls are good.
Lighter weight hulls have been built and sucessfully sailed around the
world. As an example; glass light bulbs and fishing net floats that have
floated across an ocean in all kinds of weather dispels the argument that
only heavy construction is safe and durable.

"steel"  is yet another assumption that can be disproven. It assumes that
only one hull material is suitable. There are other alternatives that can
make for a lighter weight and equally strong hull. Cold molded wood/epoxy,
aluminum, carbon fiber GRP hulls, all have been made and demonstrated
their durability and strength.

"standardization in mechanical engineering" is so vague, it's hard to even
 debate. What "standardization"?  It also excludes innovation and adoption
of what has not been done before.

Reading between the lines of your post, I suspect that what you really
meant has more to do with elimination of wasteful energy consumption, and
status seeking options that contribute little or nothing to safe
passagemaking. Those things can rightfully be attributed to over zealous
marketing hype.

As for creature comforts, if the crew is not comfortable, or well rested,
there is no point in making the passage in the first place. Thus making
this whole discussion a moot point.

Best regards
Arild