|
Wil:
Not to belabour the subject, but probably important
to get it right. The figure quoted is for a new build - that is, a design that
has not been previously classed by any accepted agency. The majority of the cost
is for 'plan approval' - where the agency's technical people/engineers go over
the detailed submissions, checking out each calculation, each FEA, each fab
drawing, strain gauge results, radiography, compliance surveys reports, etc.
Once plan approval has been granted then that specific design package is given
what is called 'type approval' or 'type class' or 'model approval' or 'serial
design approval' (differing terminology in different agencies). This
simply means that the specific design approved can be duplicated any number
of times without the necessity for plan approval each time. That allows you to
absorb the not inconsiderable cost of plan approval over several builds - as
long as you don't change anything. You can upgrade or change features from the
drawings on file with the agency, but each change must be approved (at some
cost) and the new drawings supersede the originals ( the original drawings are
retained for annual and major survey purposes on existing subs of the
original model.
All this is presumably fine for manufacturers like
us - but an unrealistic burden for a home builder! (actually, it's not even fine
for us - a hundred grand for plan approval and a fairly standard pricing scale
of about a hundred bucks an hour for a registered, qualified engineer means that
the classing agency is proposing to spend something like a thousand hours on
design review ??) - (less the agency's mark-up, of course). On a 40 hour
week, that's twenty weeks - factor in the weekends and holidays and it's
half a year! It doesn't take a qualified engineer anywhere near that time
to actually prepare the entire plan, do the calculations, etc.,
Hmmm - I'm on a soap-box, I see.
Re: Roatan and Stanley's 'the best insurance is the
fact that I'm with you' - that's sarcastically referred to as the 'Reverend
Jones waiver' in the biz. (as in " go ahead and drink the Cool-aid, see, I'm
drinking it, too! "- old-timers will get the reference, quickly.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] submarine
kit-builder's society
Hello Phil,
Sorry for a "not terribly accurate"
interpetation of your opinion about classification of private personal subs
and thanks your clarfification of this point.
Of course i am aware that
you do a lot of classing in your business for several reasons.
Thanks
for putting some overall numbers on the discussion, 150.000 USD budget
(minimum) for doing paperwork if you go for clasification (with a standard
proyect - nothing fancy).
Which means projects that can not afford that
sum (for paperwork) are automatically pushed out of "viability
zone".
For what you call "rad new concepts" you need a lot more (add a
couple of ceros to the number).
At the end the most critical point is
liability - you can get ruined by the defense costs even if you win it at the
end.
If you do something commercial in a "high liability entanglement
risk" segment it is convenient to have some deep thoughts about "project risk
management".
I find it interesting that Roatan comes to your mind in
that context. I estimate Karl Stanley a lot for his guts and his business
model - his oral waiver for sub passengers is legendary - "this sub is not
classed your only guarantee is - i come with you" - close the hatch
and dive.
Looks like most of his customers are just fine with
that.
It has a long tradition in multinational companies to do the
R&D pilot projects in countries where "nanny state security" is not a
"politically desired" and "legally implemented" status. (I am writing this
lines from south america.)
European Submarine Structures AB has
Headquaters in Stockholm (Sweden) and a R&D Branch in Cartagena South
America.
Maybe we should talk about a "low paperwork hassle" R&D
cooperation for some of the "rad new concepts" - make them work in a ambient
where paperwork cost and hassle is not the decicive project management
factor.
The basic question is: Why should i pay 150.000 USD to
clear the question "is it safe?" - when a 50 USD test proceedure can give me a
so much better answer.
150.000 is a lot of money for getting what is
finally just a "opinion". If i invest this in test series, double the
material strength, i can get a lot more safety for the money - much more "bang
for the
bug" as you say.
The good thing is classification is a
"CAN HAVE" not a "MUST HAVE" - for private sub builders and they should be
interested to keep it that way and not prepare the ground that overregulation
and
administrative overhead costs pushes the sport into the "no
viability zone".
Wil
concretesubmarine.com
2010/6/5 Phil Nuytten <phil@philnuytten.com>
Hey, Wil!
Err - Phil didn't 'recommend not to go for ABS'
(or any other certifying agencies, for that matter). I do question the value
of having a classed sub if you don't plan to take passengers for hire or
those who would not be willing to sign a 'draconian' waiver to dive in your
sub. The cost of initial 'plan approval' and then the many visits by
surveyors during the construction phase, pressure tests and
sea-trials can easily chew up a hundred and fifty thousand
dollars. The prices vary, but all are expensive for a home-built -
where you can't pass the cost on to a customer. We have actually had
potential customers change their minds about buying a semi-custom sub from
us, when they found that certification of a new build could easily bet ten
percent of the purchase price.
I believe that a home-built should should
follow the accepted PVHO and MTS guidlines for construction, however
innovative the design.
Just be prepared that if your rad new concept
is subject to plan approval by a classing agency because you want it
classed, for whatever reason, you may have to open a small
vein!
The alternative? Put the sub under regular
insurance for theft, fire, etc. and self-insure for total loss. This
doesn't cut it for liability, however, and though your iron-clad waiver may
carry the day, you can't stop the victim or his estate from bringing an
action if he/they so choose - and defense can be expensive, with no
guarantee that you'll recover legal costs, even if you win.
For the record, our subs are classed variously
by Lloyds, ABS, Cayman, and DNV.
Also for the record, I've been personally
responsible for the classing of more than 90 'submersibles' of one type or
another, so it's not terribly accurate to say that I don't believe in sub
classification,
period!
Or, if you want to avoid all paperwork hassles
- maybe move to Roatan!
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 2:38
PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST]
submarine kit-builder's society
Hello Jon, I have not been on this forum
for quite a while...just a few inputs. Doing something PIONEER
while staying within STANDARDS is like putting edges on a
circle. If you want to be a "explorer" and keep a "defensive legal
position" all the time - how will that work? Safety is NOT the same
as "Standard conform" - safety does not come from stamping - safety comes
from solid testing and solid overbuild. No matter if it is standard
conform or not. The sea does not know if your hull is stamped,
approved, standard conform...whatever...it just finds your crush depth -
stay sufficiently away from it - 1:3 - testing is the key. If you
want to build a sub according to a "industrial pressure vessel standard"
it will look, feel, and basicly - be, a "industrial pressure vessel" - who
is really dreaming about "industrial pressure vessels" ? Who wants
to have one? Sail one? What is psubs.org good for if it is only a pointer to a
"industrial pressure vessel standard" ? - if you restrict free concepts
you are basicly out of business. Why does Phil Nuytten who really
has built a lot of subs recommend not to go for ABS (not worth it)
? Wil concretesubmarine.com
2010/6/5 Jon Wallace <jonw@psubs.org>
Jens Laland wrote:
Is
this forum meant to be an exclusive "submarine kit-builder's
society"
Or,
will there still be room for people taking the time required to
work
on new design or technology, and who needs a forum where they
can present
their work in a multitude of forms; like figments,
dreams, ideas,
questions, proposals, concepts, sketches, images,
stories, discussions,
mock-ups, scale models,
etc.?
New design and technology
discussions are fine as long as they are both practical and discussed
responsibly. Practical means in the context of home-builders and
responsible means having resources to back up assertions and proposals,
or demonstrating that you are following a safe path towards your goal.
Of utmost import is safety and it must be applied diligently to
all discussion including concepts, proposals, design, fabrication and
operation. This list is public and we have a responsibility to be
careful how we present "new" concepts and "unproven" technology so that
casual readers or well-intentioned but undisciplined sub-builders don't
take those concepts as definitive alternatives to traditional materials
or procedures that are known to work reliably. Enforcing this
discipline upon ourselves strengthens us as a group and projects a
positive image to the public as well as government entities and our
industry partners.
Figments and dreams not based in practical
application to home builders, or that cannot be shown to be (or include)
safe practices, are not appropriate for this public list and should be
discussed in the "experimental" mailing list available to members
through your PSUBS accounts. The experimental mailing list was
created specifically to allow discussion of unproven ideas and concepts,
and to let those with minds who want to wander free, do so.
I assume
we have gotten here from the FRP discussion. I know nothing about
FRP or its viability for PVHO, however it seems to be indisputable that
FRP for such use is not mainstream. However, the fact remains that
research is being done on the material for use as cylinders under
external pressure as evidenced by the experiments conducted by Carl Ross
in the UK. The fact that ABS has no certification available for
FRP pressure hulls should not be discarded so lightly. While it is
possible that ABS is just behind the times as has been suggested, it is
also as equally possible and plausible that they know a bit of something
about the material in terms of fabrication for PVHO and have valid
reasons for not creating standards for it.
At PSUBS we have
adopted and promote the philosophy that home-built subs should be built
according to ABS standards. The primary reason for doing so is to
promote the safe design, fabrication, and operation of small home-built
submarines based upon proven industry standards accepted by almost
everyone. This gives us credibility and projects us in a positive
light to both the public and those authorities for which these things
matter and whom have the ability to regulate us. It also binds us
to a common standard when the need arises to justify our decision for a
particular fabrication method or operational procedure.
Unfortunately, there are too many people in the world who would
want to "save us" from ourselves. Not adopting any standard puts
us on the defensive when challenged about the safety of our vessels.
Associating ourselves with industry standards such as ABS gives us
the upper-hand in any such confrontation.
Now perhaps it may be
more obvious why some people are challenging the use of FRP for a
submarine hull. The fact that ABS does not have standards for FRP
when used for a PVHO doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, but it does
mean we need to discuss it responsibly and cautiously. I think
Alan has been taking pains to do both when discussing his plans for
using FPR, including using a composite engineer, talking about the
expense and weight, and suggesting that he will abandon the idea if it
is either economically unfeasible or otherwise impractical. Alan
has not employed the typical topic structure we've seen in the past
where someone throws out an idea as if it is fact and then defends it
with something like "nothing is impossible". It sounds like he is
taking a measured approach and doing some significant research into the
feasibility of the material for his specific design criteria. As
long as it continues in that manner I don't see a problem with having
Alan update us on his progress. Challenging new designs and
materials is good medicine for those embarking on projects that do not
conform to ABS standards, and in my opinion those designers need to
"step up to the plate" and accept it. As I have said before to
others, don't take offense to being challenged about your ideas or
plans, especially by a group that has a duty to further safe practices
for an inherently dangerous hobby. If you really believe in what
you are doing, accept the criticisms as a challenge to drive your
project to complete success and show us that you were right.
Jon
************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ The
personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US
Federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our
database because either you, or someone you know, requested you
receive messages from our organization. If you want to be
removed from this mailing list simply click on the link below or send
a blank email message to: removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.orgRemoval
of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an automated
process and should be complete within five minutes of our server
receiving your request. PSUBS.ORGPO Box 53 Weare, NH
03281 603-529-1100 ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************
|