Worse design

[gonzo]

Who knows other bad designs?
IOR produced quite a few

[powerabout]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Who knows other bad designs?
IOR produced quite a few

good call
there's some real shockers there

[Wynand N]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Who knows other bad designs?

Since you asked Gonzo, perhaps this design of mine qualifies

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...ted-31213.html

[Loveofsea]

Gentlemen

We simply disagree about what hull characteristics make for an unsafe boat.

That works for me

contrary to the assertion of one member here--ain't no way on earth you can stuff the bow of the skiff--i've run close to 70,000nm of open seas in this skiff and it has NEVER taken green water directly over the bow. I designed it that way

...there was this one time when a huge dolphin jumped directly in front of the skiff while underway. He somehow managed to throw a ball of water the size of a bowling ball up into the air and it hit me right on the chest LMAO~!

[ancient kayaker]

It should be simple enough. Stick a big motor on it, inboard would be best. Get some fat slob to sit on the bow, now charge straight for a big wave or wake and cut the power just at the right time. It might take a bit of practice. You don't really need a floatation device for this, it's safe as houses, 'cept for the guy on the bow.

[Loveofsea]

Sorry ancient, still not going to happen. I knew that i was going to spend days at a time way offshore and i also knew that i would be making the run home 3-4 days out when the weather is not so easy to predict. I couldn't use a boat that would nosedive, so i designed my boat so that it wouldn't be able to do that. I've knocked down 75-100nm of roaring whitcaps before coffee a few hundred times--that is proof of a good seaworthy design, or so i think

Originally Posted by Loveofsea

Sorry ancient, still not going to happen. I knew that i was going to spend days at a time way offshore and i also knew that i would be making the run home 3-4 days out when the weather is not so easy to predict. I couldn't use a boat that would nosedive, so i designed my boat so that it wouldn't be able to do that. I've knocked down 75-100nm of roaring whitcaps before coffee a few hundred times--that is proof of a good seaworthy design, or so i think

You never give up do you?

And YOU designed a boat? Really? What enables you to do so? Your "knowledge"?

I told you once, and I tell you again:

YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT BOAT DESIGN OR OPERATING A BOAT AT SEA!
only dumb drivel and swagger!

here is another proof of your expertise, for those still believing you have a clue about what you are talking:

Originally Posted by Loveofsea

All you need to do to start is to draw a pictiure of THE boat that is your heart's desire!
Then get a roll of scotch tape, a hefty pair of scizzors and some cardboard...

Cut and tape a model of the bitchenest boat that you can conjure up!
(do it in your livingroom tonight)
Once you have a cardboard model, then you need to establish the cardinal dimensions--overall length, width at the widest point, width of transome, etc.
use your construction/woodworking skills to complete the project.

There is no magic to building a boat hull....

Simple fearful maniac, 90.000 miles at sea..................rofl

[Willallison]

I have no interest in joining the personal diatribe that is going on here... it demeans any and every one of you that are taking part....

On a more technical point...

my point is that a well designed hull should NEVER BE ABLE TIO DIVE BELOW THE SURFACE NO MATTER WHAT THE DRIVER DOES---Period.

This is patently an utter load of rubbish. Any boat that is operated outside of the conditions that it was designed to operate, whether as a result of adverse weather etc or opertor error, can be made to perform in a dangerous manner. Poor handling can only be attributed to bad design where the boat is operating under intended conditions and STILL behaves badly.

I recall many years ago watching as one of Oz's larger boatbuilders launched a new 25-odd foot cruiser - much like the venerable Bertram 25. The boat was pushed up onto the plane and promptly flopped over onto one chine, where it remained until the speed was dropped back to displacement mode. A dozen or so sand bags later and things were somewhat better. Within a month or three the boat was lauded by the press and released to the public. Whether the ballast became an integral part of the boat, I have no way of knowing...
So adding weight to planing hulls to cure design or manufacturing faults is surely a good example - and probably one that is more common than we'd all like to think....

[frank smith]

Man , this is a tough crowd .

Frank

[Willallison]

Originally Posted by frank smith

Man , this is a tough crowd .

Frank

Tough... but fair...
Now, we can turn our minds towards your model if you like.....

[Sheepy]

Originally Posted by Loveofsea

Gentlemen

We simply disagree about what hull characteristics make for an unsafe boat.

That works for me

contrary to the assertion of one member here--ain't no way on earth you can stuff the bow of the skiff--i've run close to 70,000nm of open seas in this skiff and it has NEVER taken green water directly over the bow. I designed it that way

What a load of utter crap! So you've done 70,000nm at sea hey and never taken green water over the bow? What is it a 40 foot high bow? I've probably done 5 times as many nm at sea and if this is your claim you've never been in a rough sea, period! I'll guarantee you that I could stuff the bow of your skiff in a 20 knot noreaster on the north coast of NSW within the first mile. More than once.

[Loveofsea]

How do i say this politely....

That you continue to insult me because you can't just let a disagreement stand means little to me, sorry if you are offended by that. We are talking about conflicting opinions, not some mathamatical equasion that can be proven definitively.

Poorly designed hulls are also revealed by the need to install a fin to the outdrive for better stability or easier planing. The lower unit of an engine is for propulsion and steering ONLY, the hull is for lift and planning. If the performance of the boat is enhanced by a fin attached to the anti-cav plate, it means that the hull is defective. A well designed hull is not only incapable of submarining on flat water, it should not require an auxillary lifting device attached to the outdrive to make it work properly--i believe in the strict separation of functions. The engine pushes, the hull lifts and planes...

Also, if you have to put a bunch of sandbags in a hull to keep it upright, well... THAT is definately a flawed design!

I have been in what i call severe weather on only 3 ocassions--i'm not talking about 25-35 kt wind and 8 foot squared, i'm talking 50+kts and 10ft at 6 second stuff.. I carry 54 gallons of fuel in the fwd 1/3 of the hull---way up in the bow. Still, there is ANSOLUTELY NO WAY ANY of you stalwart adventurers could stuff the bow in the conditions that i have repeatedly referred to. Sorry, ain't going to happen. And that makes perfectly good sense--how stupid would it be for me to do what i do in a hull so flawed that it would nosedive on a river??? Now if i was running down swell in 8ft squared, i could get the bow to dig in, bit the stem would split the water and the splash rail would keep the bow from going under. But that is certainly not the conditions we saw in the video when i criticized those boats for being so inherently unsafe, is it?

I'm with Sheepy (and everyone else). Darwin will catch up with you.

[gonzo]

What about a bad design?

[frank smith]

Originally Posted by Willallison

Tough... but fair...
Now, we can turn our minds towards your model if you like.....

I have yet to find much constructive or instructive in this thread .

In the future I will post some lines I have drawn , and would welcome your opinion.

Frank