What inspires you as boat designer?

[Alik]

Originally Posted by rxcomposite

We designed the mast to carry the regulation lights (with enough height to pass the air height restriction) and gave it to the contractor. The smart ass contractor lengthened the mast saying COLREG regulation, the lights has to have a separation of 1 meter apart.

This is very common, another sample: we were required to place commercial radar (10kW) on 18m passenger cat recently. The radar is mounted on wheelhouse roof because of the height limit 4.5m to pass under bridges. So, what is the sense to have such a powerful big radar (1.4m wide open scanner), as it can not use its range from 4m height, and also will radiate into saloon and wheelhouse? But authorities do no care because those issues are not written in the Rules; the frequency and 'class approval' are requested. And here is another cartoon on the subject:

[viking north]

Both fields have good and bad designs, the bads mostly driven by promoted marketing trends, style over function. In boating design this has gone so far as installing picture windows just barley above the hulls waterline, In the auto industry it has led to an automobile so compact in design that the engine has to be removed in order to change it's oil. In one case the boating industry could learn from the poor window designs(placement) of the auto industry by installing the windows high. In the opposite approach an auto designer could take a few lessons from the boating industry as a boating designer would never go as far as designing a machine in which the engine has to be removed to change oil. I do have to admit some of those boat engines are almost as hard to get at to make repairs as the modern automobile. However in both fields good designers face a common trade off, trying to build a good product hampered by marketing promoted trends and over regulation. With that I exit the thread as i think while i am quazi on topic it is not the course you as Op visioned -- My apologies if this is too far so---Geo.


A yacht is not defined by the vessel but by the care and love of it's owner---

[DCockey]

Originally Posted by viking north

... In the auto industry it has led to an automobile so compact in design that the engine has to be removed in order to change it's oil. .....

A little bit of an exagaration.

[yipster]

Exagaration? Hear this!

What about the love? my vision on art, design, boatdesign and more, perhaps even naked woman

as amatuer boat designer there is freedom in admiration and expressing that love for boats but often a lack in knowledge and experience

as Pro your appreciation is educated, commerce rules and that . Best work however, I belive, is made with love! Dont lose the love!

I'm sure some wiseguy said something like this before and better

[viking north]

David--as much as it sounds insane it is possibly not over exageration according to two friends of mine who own such a machine. I do not have first hand knowledge but will confirm their stories. Also I seem to recall the same horror story floarting around when the vehicle first made it's public sales appearance. I do not want to drive this thread off course into automotive design so I will PM you on my findings---Geo

[tom kane]

Here in New Zealand we are having a spate of boats running into each other and running over towed things. Why do not designers make boats that plane properly instead of boats that have no clear vision particularly forward.
A boat should get over the hump and maintain a flat plane (forget efficiency) for safety. Every boat that attracts my eye is one that has a flat plane angle and it is obvious that it is reaching best performance.
Outboard installs seem to be the worst offenders or boats with all the weight at the back. Design boats to do a boats work. A boat that leaves the water and bounces all aver the place is not a good designed boat,although it may look spectacular and fun.

[DCockey]

Originally Posted by viking north

It would be nice if todays car designers took a few lessons from boats in terms of vision. Most of todays cars and trucks are nothing but claustrophobic eggs. The side windows and back windows are placed so high in the doors and rear shelf that it is literally impossible to see other than the narrow field of vision from the side mirrors. The bonnet (hood) slopes are so pronounced in the name of airstreaming you can not see the front of the vehicle at all. It has gotten so bad that the manufacturers now have to install sonar devices to guide you front and rear. This I might add, at an additional cost to the customer at purchase time and repairs to pass safety inspections. We recently shopped around for a new car. The vision was so bad in the new automobiles we had to resort in purchasing a two year old model so my wife could see the front of the vehicle. I recall during the 60 and 70's the buzz words in automotive ads was "reducing blind spots". Maybe it's time the NA's started designing automobiles because someone is surely dropping the ball out there and no doubt resulting in alot of people getting hurt in the process--

Auto styling/design is very similar to that of clothing. Both vary over time. Hemlines of both skirts and trousers go up and down, lapels go from narrow to wide to narrow, and so forth.

Hood/bonnet height and beltline heights of automobiles are an interesting example. Up through WWI they tended to be low relative to the occupants. Then post-WWI they started going up until some cars in the late '30s appeared to have almost slits for the windshield and windows. Post-WWII hoods/bonnets and beltlines started dropping and continued to do so though the early to mid '90s. By then the goal was the lowest hood/bonnet and beltline possible. Induction manifolds were reworked to be lower. Door structures and glass regulator mechanisms were redesigned to obtain the maximum possible door glass drop. More glass was better. Engineers were the ones arguring that there were limits on how low was feasible.

Then in mid-90's the trend changed. Higher hoods/bonnets and belt lines were in. Claims were made that buyers wanted less glass so they felt more secure. Engineers were now arguring that vision was important, and there were limits on how far up hood/bonnets in particular could go. But the higher hoods/bonnets and beltlines helped with packaging.

Safety requirements and expectations changed. The biggest change was the introduction of "pedistrian protection" requirements in the EU. The severity of the impact of a headform on the hood/bonnet was contolled. Either an active hood which popped up in the event of a collision or more space between the hood and engine compartment components was needed. With a tremendous amount of work automakers are now able to meet these regulatins while minimizing their adverse effects. These regulations also had a major influence on front planview shape and front fender shape because of the way the zones for head impact regulations were calculated.

One set of safety requirement which directly influenced visibility were those concerning head impact with the auto interior. In general padding was required between the interior surface and pillar structures which tended to increase overall pillar section size.

[DCockey]

"Aerodynamics" is a reason frequently cited for various design trends in automobiles, whether considered desirable or not.Aerodynamics does influence auto design, but the reality is actual aerodynamics has much less effect than perceived aerodynamics.

Many observers and un-informed designers focus on the front of car in assessing how aerodynamic it is, make comments such as "it cuts through the air cleanly", and ignore the back. Reality is somewhat different. As long as the flow over the front of a car is attached the drag is virtually independent of the details of the shape. A box front with sufficiently rounded edges can be as low drag as an egg-like shape if the flow over both is attached. Hood height and windshield angle have very little direct affect on drag. If the hood doesn't blend smoothly into the windshield there will be a separation bubble, but the drag directly attibutable to the bubble will generally be very small. It may also provide a location to park wiper blades and arms without increased drag. Eliminating the separation bubble can increase drag if the windshield wipers and arms are in turn exposed to the unseparated flow.

The shape of the rear of a car is very important for drag though not always in obvious ways. For sedans a higher deck surface generally lowers drag. Backlight (rear window) angle and angle is mcuh more complicated. Keeping the flow attached is good IF strong trailing vortices are not generated. Some "fastbacks" from the late '60s and early '70s are close to the high drag situation. Clean separation at a crease or other surface feature is generally better than separation which wanders around.

[DCockey]

Originally Posted by tamaran

.... And in the car industry the marketing guys finally understood that good design sells, and now the design depatments are filled with young artists employed to make their products more desirable, but according to marketing.
Sorry, I have to defend car designers, let's get back to boat talk.

It was understood over eighty years ago that good design sells. The first styling studios of a major manufactuer were established in the 1920's. But views of what is good design are not universal and have evolved. First asthetic preferences are not all the same at any given time, and can change greatly with time. Then there are different views about what the balances should be between asthetics, occupant (and luggag) accomodations, performance of many different types, manufacturing, and cost. The best results are obtained when the various groups work together, not as adversaries or in a "throw it over the wall" situation. I've worked on a number of programs directly involved pushing the envelope of what is feasible as far as possible, and then setting the best balance for the particular vehicle.