Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell

Expand Messages
  • Carl
    I understand the law of large numbers and also that there are hypothesis testing procedures that can help with non-normality. I also understand the situation
    Message 1 of 32 , Nov 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I understand the law of large numbers and also that there are hypothesis testing procedures that can help with non-normality. I also understand the situation concerning multis that you stated. My question is; Does the situation still exist re multis or has it changed? Our combative correspondant thinks it has because they are good investments. I doubt that because I never met a boat that was a good investment, because pleasure in non-tangible. I'm really serious here, has the multi environment changed from what you described or are the factors you mentioned still predominant

      Kudos for insuring the Hunley no doubt a factor in it's retrieval. Don't insure it operationally, I hear it has some bad history....



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John and Kathy Trussell
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell


      Insurance and actuarial work is based, in large part, on the law of large numbers which states, the larger the number of samples in a group, the more nearly the actual results of the grroup will approach the expected results for the group. (Flip a coin 10 times and you probably will not get a 50/50 split between heads and tails; flip it 100,000 times and you will get very close to 50/50.) If there are a large enough number of samples, the predictions are said to be 100% credible. As the number of samples gets smaller, the predicted results are less credible. Insurers like 100% credibility and when they are faced with novel boats, they tend to hedge their bets by charging additional premium for the uncertainty resulting from less than 100% credibility.

      Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a relatively short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who used less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction materials. As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed spectacularly or simply gone missing. Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums.

      I insured the CSS Hunley while she was still on the bottom. My staff and I kicked the risks around and finally pulled a number out of the air for a premium. Of course, the Hunley was one of a kind, had already sunk and was, quite literally, "pig iron under water"....

      John T
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Carl
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell

      Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20 years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Christopher Wetherill
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:30 PM
      Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell

      Somewhere back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posted
      as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
      think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.

      Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
      Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
      First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
      cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
      apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
      many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
      opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
      this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
      they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
      policies in the advent of new technologies.

      V/R
      Chris

      Carl wrote:
      > Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: proaconstrictor
      > To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
      > Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
      >
      >
      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
      > crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
      > the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
      > cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
      > numbers.
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
      > post and ignored the numbers?
      >
      > Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
      > parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Bolger rules!!!
      > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
      > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
      > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
      > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
      > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
      > - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ----------------------------------------------------------

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • proaconstrictor
      Aside from Herreshoff s experiments in the early 1900 s, multihulls didn t really begin to develop until after WW II I know what you mean though there is a
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        "Aside from Herreshoff's experiments in
        the early 1900's, multihulls didn't really begin to develop until after
        WW II"

        I know what you mean though there is a tendency to overlook thousands
        of years of development in the rest of the world. There were other
        westerners pre-Herreshoff and on a much larger scale. There have also
        been many important experimenters from below the yachting radar between
        Amaryllis and the post war

        "and for much of the last century were sort of a counter culture boat.
        It may
        take a few more years for multihulls to become mainstream."

        Never owned one, but from what I understand the Hobbie was the largest
        category of sailboat in it's day. Sailing multihulls are now
        frequently on the covers of yachting magazine, particularly those that
        emphasize cruising. In Europe multihull yacht racing has some
        considerable prominence with financial institutions using the coverage
        of boat ownership to snake their way onto public television, the whole
        fast ferry industry has gained momentum, there are catamaran cruise
        ships, there is the big day charter cattlemaran phenon. Dennis Connor
        owned a bunch of those sailboats. There are little niches like
        coaching boats for watersports and pontoon boats. Do we get to claim
        houseboats on two pontoons? Sailing yachts are my main interest and I
        don't see a time soon when multihulls will replace monos since they are
        expensive to dock. They are a far better bet for those who actually
        use their boats. They may be reaching a point where they have a
        mainstream level of mindshare. People don't care about them one way or
        the other, but if faced with a trip on one they don't pull out a dog-
        eared copy of Herreshoff's biography and start sputtering indignantly.

        "Our combative correspondant thinks it has
        because they are good investments. I doubt that because I never met a
        boat that
        was a good investment, because pleasure in non-tangible."

        Right, then neither drugs nor gambling will ever amount to anything.
        Good tip. I did not say they were a good investment I said there were
        a lot of them being bought as an investment. In Canada during the same
        period there was a government program designed to promote boat building
        (in the absence of a nuclear navy etc...) that gave government
        subsidies to people buying boats. People would buy these boats and
        rent them out. In the extreme, three college students created a huge
        business building houseboats that popped up everywhere. In the French
        case, the charter business led to the creation of several powerhouse
        cat companies like Privilege. Insurance was available to secure the
        loans, both relative to the crossings from France, and subsequent
        operations.

        "Your tone remains insulting,"

        Get over it. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I sincerely bear
        you no ill will. I think you fired the first arrow against the
        multihull, I'm firing back with equal force. If some imaginary actuary
        gets caught in the crossfire, why should anyone care? Bolger is a
        designer of multihulls among other things, and the author of Boats With
        an Open Mind. That's all this is about, certain choices made by the
        great one, and open minds.

        "Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a
        relatively
        short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who
        used
        less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction
        materials.
        As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed
        spectacularly
        or simply gone missing."

        Right you are, though adjusted for scale, this sounds like a summary of
        Bolger boats also.


        "Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these
        exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums."

        This is where it gets tricky. Do we know this for a fact? Is it world
        wide, or a one country, one state, one office thing? Does the
        insurance industry really keep these kinds of stats?. I have been on a
        bunch of the multihull boards, and also done survey work, and even got
        quotes for insurance that would have been a rider on my household or
        car policy, and was cheap, though I decided to self insure for the
        reason that I boat in a large lake in NB where there are virtually no
        other boats. I don't remember a problem about this ever. In southern
        Ontario we have at least 5 multihull factories (none of which I have or
        have ever been connected to) business seems OK. We have a strong club,
        not a member there either, but the people there seem very normal I
        don't know what they pay for insurance, never came up. The only
        problems I have had related to the boats being wood. There is a bias
        against wooden boats. People will tell you that one can't get those
        insured either.

        I have learned one interesting "fact" in all this. In the multihull
        world Amaryllis is fondly remembered as a triumph that was only held
        back by the conservatism of the day. I did not know that there was an
        alternative spin. I wonder which was the revisionist interpretation.
        Speaking of prejudice or conservatism in yachting. I think that is a
        far more likely lens through which to see this kind of thing today and
        for the last century or so.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.