Lets settle this once and for all. Which is the superior ship building method?

Lets settle this once and for all. Which is the superior ship building method?

Attached: 1920px-Clinker-carvel.svg.png (1920x965, 64K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ship
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Dude, you shouldn't have rattled the cage. Now you've started it.

Clinker-build, obviously

Carvel is if you want a well made ship that is reliable, efficient, and fast. Clinker is for brain dead retards.

nah salt water expands the slats in a carvel, makes a better fit.

Carvel is objectively superior; it has better hydrodynamics to reduce water resistance, whereas Clinker has these pointless unnecessary bits jutting out into the water creating extra surface area for the water to resist on.

t. hydrophysicist

Clinker is fine for smaller boats, carvel for larger (although that means a lot a caulking).

>Hydrophysicist
Nice try sweaty, couldn’t get a job as a dolphin trainer?

I'll have you know that mine is a respected profession that has nothing to do with dolphins.

I did, however, calculate the exact optimum height for the orca tank at sea world so it would splash as many people as possible.

Carvel all the way!

Attached: 7D32EB78-A7BE-4B38-95DE-CD482C504CD7.jpg (1280x960, 328K)

muh caulk.

>I did, however, calculate the exact optimum height for the orca tank at sea world so it would splash as many people as possible.
My sides! I like your humour.

so why don't we use clinker, but chip off the protruding bits? There can be overlap without all the pointyness right?

carvel fo lyfe

Any overlap is inefficient.

>respected profession
>not a dolphin trainer
Pick one

Neither. Just bend one big piece of wood to shape.

CARVEL 4 LIFE. clink fags btfo

Bumping for the angry clinker brainlets

I hope you don’t get paid by commission, because I hate to break it to you but water has already been invented

Fixed it. Doesn't look hydrodynamically inefficient to me.

Attached: 1562063738686.png (1920x965, 118K)

/thread
clinkerfags btfo

I like your theory, but the wood has to be BIG. Where can we get wood of that size?

just ask your mom, she has a nack for finding big black wood.

Building a wooden boat and going for Carvel. The frames don't need to be cut to get nearly 100% surface area for the planking. I have a YouTube channel too. Acorn to Arabella. I have a recent video exploring this topic. Feel free to stop by.

fucker! you got my stuffed animals wet when i was a kid at sea world.

Yea Forums fails to dissapoint

So what are the benefits to the Clinker system?
The planks don't have to be cut as precisely?
So its cheaper?

Impossible to tool to the point that it surpasses Carvel efficiency.

Those bits on the Clinker simulate a heterogeneous surface actually disrupting the surface tension of the water and reducing drag.

learn to Berg
t. surface scientist

>layering wood
Just build your ship out of concrete lmao
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ship

Clinker is an older type of ship building used in ancient ships before the age of sailing

Attached: 1559169120351.jpg (525x525, 46K)

The clinker form of construction is linked in people's minds with the Vikings who used this method to build their famous longships from riven timber (split wood) planks. Clinker is the most common English term for this construction in both British and American English, though in American English the method is sometimes also known as lapstrake.

The smoother surface of a carvel boat gives the impression at first sight that it is hydrodynamically more efficient. The lands of the planking are not there to disturb the stream line. This distribution of relative efficiency between the two forms of construction is an illusion because for given hull strength, the clinker boat is lighter because it does not rely upon the compressive forces of the caulking and the resulting friction to bind the skin together. It therefore displaces less water so it has less to push aside while moving. The reduced displacement could be used to make the lines finer so as to make the passage through the water easier still. Of course, displacement was increased as cargo was loaded but still, the clinker vessel had the advantage in efficiency as the structure can be less bulky. Therefore, for a given internal volume, there was a smaller external one, meaning that a bulkier cargo could be carried if need be, given sufficient freeboard.

(cont.)

(cont.)

Additionally, the clinker built method as used by the Vikings created a vessel which could twist and flex relative to the line extending length of the vessel, bow to stern. This gave it an advantage in North Atlantic rollers so long as the vessel was small in overall displacement. Increasing the beam, due to the light nature of the method, did not commensurately increase the vessel's survivability under the torsional forces of rolling waves, and greater beam widths may have made the resultant vessels more vulnerable.

There is an upper limit to the size of clinker built vessels, which could be and was exceeded by several orders of magnitude in later large sailing vessels incorporating carvel-built construction. Clinker requires relatively wide planking stock compared to carvel, as carvel can employ stealers to reduce plank widths amidships where the girth is greatest. The need for sufficient lap to accept the clench fastenings drives towards wider planks in proportion to thickness than can be employed in carvel. In all other areas of construction, including framing, deck, etc., clinker is as capable as carvel. Clinker construction remains to this day a valuable method of construction for small wooden vessels.

cuh maulk

Shut up and post your asshole

eeehh.. but im very shy

Come on, I know you want to

I can't read your posts! I left the thread!

>implying that’s a valid reason to not provide pooper pics

bruh I can't post pictures in a thread I'm not in...

duh

hurr durr I’m not in the thread I’m just replying though