I would think non-idiots should realize this when it turns out they need lots of steel to reinforce a ark structure that is sitting on stable land.
3 Likes
Wood can’t melt golden calfs!
3 Likes
I’m just concerned that, at this momentary sign of disfavor, the Ark Encounter people will revert to their old ways:
And, BEHOLD, The Ark speaks, er, retweets:
7 Likes
The Wyoming, which is a wooden ship of similar length almost completely made of wood (the Ark Encounter is quite a bit wider). Admittedly the Wyoming was built to modern 19th century shipbuilding techniques and uses iron cross bracing primarily because it takes up less space than an equivalent wooden bracing. I’m sure cutting down all the old growth timber over the last few centuries doesn’t make things any easier.
The Ark Encounter seems to be built as an architectural building rather than as a sea worthy vessel. And it’s not intended to replicate of the techniques used in biblical times, but it is more conceptual in nature to give people a sense of the size.
also, is it me or is the only problem with the road to the Ark washing out and not with the Ark itself? People like the idea that the Ark can’t handle some rain, but I’m not aware of any article where the structure itself has problems.
Say it’s not so!
5 Likes
Should have prayed to Poseidon instead.
2 Likes
That isn’t much of a counter example. Besides needing iron internal bracing, it also needed near constant pumping because its length let it twist in the water, allowing water in between the planks. It also sank in a storm, a presumably much weaker storm than the ocean-boiling apocalypse of Genesis.
1 Like
It’s the best working example I could think of that isn’t a fairy tale.
2 Likes
Irony would imply something contrary to what one expects. This on the other hand is exactly what I would expect. The schadenfreude created by their self-righteous hubris is more of a poetic justice.
2 Likes
This. Also, isn’t the issue that the insurance policy covers the ark itself and not the access roads to the “attraction”?
1 Like
“Bill Noah” in the title block of the blueprints should have been their first indication something was amiss…
The dispute seems to be about this section of the policy:
Section 4. PERILS EXCLUDED
This Policy does not insure:
B. against the cost of correcting defective design or specifications, faulty
material, or faulty workmanship; however, this exclusion shall not apply to
direct physical loss, damage or destruction resulting from such defective
design or specifications, faulty material, or faulty workmanship.
The Ark people’s claim says that the insurance company argues that the damage was due to faulty workmanship/design and is therefore not covered.
The Ark people understandably point to the bit after the semicolon which states that direct physical loss, damage or destruction resulting from defective design, etc. is covered.
So the question is what the hell does that mean?
I would say immediate repairs to shore up the damaged road, stabilise the slope, etc. are covered but the costs of designing and building a better road are not.
Which by happy coincidence appears to be the insurance company’s position.
The tricky bit is of course working out whether the ‘new’ road design is necessary because the old road was crap or because of the damage caused by the slippage which would have occured even if the old road had been ok.
There’s a lot of room for expensive arguments there.
There was also an argument about whether the road is excluded as being ‘land’ but that seems to have been sorted and agreement reached that it is not but rather a ‘land improvement’ and therefore is covered.
2 Likes
Why insurance?
Their god will provide. Or are they heretics?
2 Likes
In that case it would probably have capsized.
Well, for what it’s worth, you can build really big ocean-going ships out of wood if you outsource:
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
