Clay modeling

I think clay modelling has always been very rare in this industry? And as you say, with 3D computer models you can have a small robot cut your model in foam, for tank testing or just to look at. I think for the latter, all kinds of models, wooden, plastic, metal, or clay, are all better than the pure screen model to get an understanding of the boats true proportions.

Obviously more prevalent in the car design field. Clay modelling is still very much part of the curriculum in some of the better know Automotive Design Degree courses too(Coventry Uni in the UK as an example). I have seen magazine articles showing clay models in Yacht design studios, but I dont know if these were just for show or actual design tools.
AFAIK, more commonly conceptual yacht models are made from foam, wood or 'plastic wood' material, the latter being incredibly easy to machine and hand finish. Also, as mentioned before, great materials CNCing a 3-D design. I myself use foam for the conceptual models I build (by hand)...my wife and the cat dont appreciate living in a cloud of static laden foam dust, but hey-ho. Very easy to work with by hand, and if you make a mistake you can graft another bit in. If you want to go a stage further with foam, you can coat the final model in resin, and then filler and quickly achieve a finish good enough to take moulds from.
I have used clay though, and I like the finish that can be achieved, but for a larger scale model the cost and sheer weight is an issue. There is also the rigmarole of warming up the clay before you apply it to your buck and the worry of your model drying out and cracking. Also the finer detail in a clay model is obviously more prone to damage than more resilient materials.

It depends on the scale and function

The way I see it your plyable materials make sense at about 1/16th to 1/24th scale, and especially if that finished hull is to be fiberglass. But I would immediately want to see how the thing floats... blub,blub,blub.

Someday, I have to build a model of the UFO I saw. I won't go on about it here, but actually, perhaps I should. It occurs to me that if you saw what I saw, -while crossing the triangle, well, beam us up Scotty! I would rather plane than drown.

But, if one could use a thin laminated strip of plastic, (that held its form like shrink-wrap under a little heat,) you could build something off a wireframe drawing, wrap it like an airplane fuscilage and observe all of it's aquatic qualities in a few hours.

Here is my dilemna; -stargazers only need apply:
http://redlineav.com/trianglecraft.html

Returning to earth...

I know Dick Lazzara still uses clay, even though their boats are digitally generated. It may be old school to some, but in the hand's of a sculptor, clay still gives a good baseline and a tangible Rembrandt to behold, discuss and modify. I worked with it many years ago, before AutoCad, for designing propulsion components. Even after the advent CAD, clay was faster for years to follow. These days, no contest.

As both a sculpter AND yacht designer I find a 3 D model very useful - early in the process.

However, I use clay for such subjects as people - or organic architectural forms - and prefer to use WOOD for making ship models.
As did the Great Master - Mr. H. Whose boats won - was it six or severn - American Cups?
Way back then......

The more contempory Master, Nigel Irens, uses the same wood that decoys are carved from, for his models.
We both start with a difinitive sketch in paper.
( Yes..... PAPER ! )
Then we go to a wooden 3 D sketch -and finaly...to the computer.
Then off to the engineers.......and the boat yards.

People often go on at some length about how they can do 3 D alterations in the computer.
However, having done it both ways.......in the computer and BEFOREHAND - on paper - and then in wood. I'm more comfortable with the more traditional way.
Also - for me, it's just plain FASTER.
In respect to:the TOTAL design, engineering and build time.

As errors that too often occurr in constucting vessels - designed entirly in the computer - are less likly, using my preferred process.

Finaly: in the matter of aesthetics:
Have you noticed - with the proponderence of computer designing going on - that a certain
" sameness " in form has become increasingly prevelent !?
In part, I suspect, because most computers are not comfortable with parabolic or hyperbolic curves.

Tristar said:

Is this true. I know nothing about it but I am suspicious of a statement that computers are uncomfortable of anything. Unless you mean, people find it difficult to generate said curves using current software and for some unfathomable reason no one has thought to create software to make it easy?

Or is it true that computers could possibly have trouble with certain geometries?

Back to basics

Welcome aboard the mothership, Tristar! Yes, one can certainly appreciate the value of the wooden models in Mr. H's workshop. And imagine that, she Floats!

I agree with all of what you said...

We have been discussing 3D computer design in other threads and most of us are defending the methods we use at present, but I would love to go from 2D to 3D if only the programs could follow my intentions.

I guess the problem is the same as with many computer programs, the originator is not an end user and the users can not express what they would really need until it is there. One area where I have a problem in 3D is the bow of a yacht, to get the right flare to correspond to the bowline and deckline. (With clay you can do it in seconds!)

Looking at what is built around the world, this seems to be a common problem. Bows used to be more beautiful on both small and big yachts if we go back in time. There are of course exceptions and I guess it can be done in most programs, but not without extra efforts...

I think you have got some answers and I think clay can never be used with accuracy to model a yacht for the tooling, just as another way of visualizing in 3D. With cars it is different since you often work in half or full scale and can have a robot with laser to scan the final result. But also there I think it will soon be entirely replaced by the computers when it comes to production models.

You probably know that we use robots to make "clay" plugs for moulds already? The 3D CAD drawings are used to cut out the shape in a dense foam, say 5 mm smaller than the final shape. Then the robot applies a 10 mm coat of something we can call plastic clay and after the robot once again cut down to an accuracy of 0.1 mm. This surface is then sprayed with a paint, polished and the mould is built around it.

Today this method is used for all from the smallest dinghy to big yachts.

Following up on my earlier post, just came across an image of a happy clay modeler. This is of course Dick Lazzara, sporting a stogy and carving another chapter...

Clay modeling Part 2

Before taking issue with some of the statements I've made:

- yotphix,
"....I am suspicious......"
( Of people who don't worship computers ?)
" ...is it true... computers could possibly have trouble with
certain geometries..."
( Well yes...! Some do.)
- And coismov,
".....2D vs 3D...not what I intended..."
( This is inherent...within the answers.)

Perhaps it will be more productive to consider WHY.....
Mr. H. ( Nathanael Herreshoff ) made half models out of
wood - rather than clay.
Never mind the multitude of American Cuppers.....
Consider: as quoted by the Enclyclopaedia Brit.,
Mr. H. "......designed AND built catamarans in the 1870s
( that's right - the 1870s ! ) that sailed so successfully
........they were barred from organized racing."

It will serve - to consider well - the practical choices such
an EFFECTIVE visionary makes.

Or why Mr. Irens, also with a list of leading edge vessels
many can envy......also prefers wood for his models.

The reason, I submit is: hydrodynamics.
What goes on below the waterline.
The gentlemen above - dont take a back seat re:
aesthetics - topsides.
However: To win races or break records their boats
have to be " Spot On ! " hydrodyamicaly.

Untill well past 40 knots, the tolerences of
deckhouse surfaces are not of as great a concern.
Whereas, below the waves, resistance, even at 5 knots
- off of Long Island - is VERY significant.

As AMG puts it:
"........clay can never be used with accuracy......"
It's inherently; to SOFT a material.
Even Balsa wood and low density foams are lacking.
For best results, harder woods, with a tight, even grain
are more usefull.
Clay has the advantage that; material can both - be
taken away AND be added onto. With equal ease.

However, for the final finishing, I use a similer process as
is done in industrial situations - as indicated by AMG......
Plaster of Paris, or ordinary household, plaster repair
material, is very effective. For that final " cut and fill "
over the wood.
Models can be faired to pretty high tolerences this way.
( Not being a complete Luddite, once the lines are taken
off the model and transposed by me into the computer,
I will further - fair - said lines. If need be.)

Finaly:
The reference to 2D is UNAVOIDABLE in this discussion
- as we are ALL endevouring to achieve mastery in a
sculptural, 3D medium. That almost ALWAYS starts
out in 2D. Often sketched out IN 2D. On the proverbial
bar napkin!
The debate is: what works best for people ? To get to
that final, three dimentional form ?
With clay, wood or to increasingly - depend entirely - on the
machinations of computer technology ?

Cheers All !

Yo, Nate!

Silly me, I thought that he thought, (like any smart designer) to test these wooden boats in the bathtub, before promptly slicing them down the middle, just to insure the results of his hard work didn't get knocked-off. Now, about suppressed technology...

This was my Coventry Uni Project at roughly the half way stage...clay is still the best medium for messing around with surfaces and refining the overall styling etc.