High Power Very Small Tri(s)-10'-14'-why not?

I learned a lot about "beach" trimaran potential in researching this thread: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/18-trimaran-vs-f18-catamaran-33201.html
What I'm wondering now is why not a small very high powered square or over square tri between,say, 10' and 14' ? Why hasn't one been done-or maybe there is something available that I haven't found? Criteria is that it must be designed to fly the main hull.
Can anyone think of reasons why this is not a good idea or why it hasn't been done(if it hasn't)? Constructive comments only, please.
---
6/29/10 Based on the research done for the F18 vs 18' thread it seems that it is worth exploring whether or not the theme of the 18' tri could be applicable to boats within the 10-14' range.
That theme was to use state of the art technology to allow a trimaran to be more powerfull than a beachcat while only using 50-60% of the power available to a "square " configuration tri(to accomplish this a tri does not, necessarily, need to be square). By "toning down" the maximum power the crew can be kept near the center of the tri relieving the requirement to run from side to side while allowing very comfortable seating. This allows the boat to be sailed very easily while experiencing extraordinary speed-faster than most beachcats.
More Comfort- More Speed- Wide crew range(singlehanded or doublehanded with MAX power)



heres a 6' RC model I designed:
-note the picture on the dock-in the upper left hand corner there is a man standing-to give you an idea of the size of these boats. The man was Dr. Sam Bradfield who converted the white tri to a hydrofoil to test ideas for the 40' SKAT....

 

First of all, you will have to set aside your desire to equip all boats on the water with foils and speak to the business of conventionally sailed trimarans. Having made no indication of the use of foils in your thread title, we all assume that the topic deals with non lifting foil craft. Failing that agreement, there is nothing to talk about under this thread title.

If you wish to go forward under the agreement, then proceed to the next paragraph. If you do not agree, then I suggest you write to our Forum owner, Jeff and ask him to change the title of your thread to one that more accurately reflects your real intent.

Put your weight (what is it now, Doug, 240 or thereabouts? be honest) in the cockpit of a 10' tri and tell me what size sail, amas, aka beams, hull structure scantlings... the whole works it would need to fly a main hull. You love lists of numbers, so this should be right up your wazoo for interest level.

Let's assume, for purposes of gross simplicity, that the water is absolutely calm and that there will be no additional structural loadings due to sea state. Yes, we all know that this won't happen, but let's play with it as long as you feel it necessary to pursue the question.

Add-up all the various and sundry weights, calculate a wind speed value to execute the glorious deed, as you see it, and tell us how heavy shall the boat need to be, how rigged shall it need to be, how stable at speed shall it be and lastly, how little will it matter, in order to get to this magic number you so clearly need to discover.

Once you achieve this level of understanding, you have answered your own base question and the need for this thread will pass into oblivion.

 

Hpvst-10-14'

I would think that to effectively design a high power tri within the range of 10-14' that the latest modern technology in multihulls-and a substantial degree of innovation- would have to be incorporated in many facets of the design.

 

So you say, Doug, but boat buyers around the world do not share your obsession with all things foily in nature. With that in mind, why is it so difficult for you to be honest about the angle you wish to take in a thread of this type and say, openly, that what you are looking for is yet another discussion about foils?

Foil equipped boats are such an infinitesimal segment of the overall sailing craft market worldwide, that I would think that innovative and grounded design without lifting foils would make for a much more global and overall interesting discussion on the topic.

When one confines oneself to a particular aspect of design, one can only proceed so far before all the ideas at one's disposal are consumed. Since you aren't prepared to build any of the boats you spend so much time proposing, one might as well be talking about anti-gravity boats that never touch the water's surface, save for an immersed rudder to change direction... it's that relevant.

Worldwide sales figures for boats in this size support the reality that foiling boats are but an insignificant component of the sport.

 

I am thinking about slapping a foil onto my 14' Indian River along with amas and a sail but how to reinforce the original hull to take the strain is proving to be a road block at this point.

 

=============
Thats funny-and uninformed ,Chris: new boats all the time are coming out using foils. The top beachcat designer in the world thinks that foils are the future for multihulls. From what I learned doing the research in the F18 thread there is good reason for that-there are tremendous benefits-particularly in applying "foil assist" technology to small multihulls. Whats more it is just one more "tool" that a modern multihull designer can choose to take advantage of-increasing their own knowledge in a wide open field -while at the same time helping others to see what is-unquestionably- tremendous potential. It is the future-just like Martin says.....
Chris, why do you waste your time posting in this thread-or any other thread of mine?

 

If I'm uninformed, then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the total sales numbers this last year for foiling craft... for the entire globe. While you are at it, share with us as to how many ancient tech, Lasers were also sold during the same period. One, long produced, fiberglass, low-tech boat that doesn't have lifting foils, Doug and it outsold, by a wide margin, all the foil equipped small craft in the whole world. Shall I name another ten boats that also exceeded foiler sales? Since you are driven by numbers, there's some for you to chew on... enjoy your meal.

Truth is, Douglas, I read several industry publications every month to keep tabs on the market for both sailing and power craft. Your assumption that foilers are important in the grand scheme of things in the sailboat world is the part that's uninformed. Of course, if you're feeling especially bold and would like to get a dose of reality, you can always look up the numbers relating to my claims on the Internet. I bet that you won't have the temerity to factually report what you find.

Someone has to present a voice of reason in the face of this obsessive foolishness being shown about foilers as the answer for everything that sails on this planet. Why don't you focus, instead, on seriously good design solutions for functional boats that people will actually use... and can afford?

Why not work to create a solution for the ever-present aero drag of all the stuff that is above the deck on every sailing boat... including the clothing worn by the crew members. The benefits to the entire sailing community would be stupendous and wouldn't cost any more than the stuff already being used. You want to make boats faster and more affordable, that's where the biggest gains are to be had for all sailors everywhere and not just a few practitioners of the foiling niche.

Answer that set of questions honestly and you'll see that foiling is but a tiny drop in the sea of things that are out there, waiting to be explored in the sailing environment. Instead, you want to push an expensive, fiddly, maintenance loaded technology of which only a few will ever really make use. Feel free to waste your time, but I don't call that productive.

 

Not everybody wants his boat to be a rowboat but that doesn't mean they have no place. Different strokes for different folks. I am still waiting for mine.

 

High Power Very Small Tri(s)-10-14'

This thread-as was the F18 thread-is about developing future technology by using the best of current technology in new ways to create fun and exciting ways to sail-that nobody else has even dreamed of yet. Martin Fischer and many others are looking at the future as well-what is hot now is old technology for the most part. This is about future tech-a boat or boats that might be a viable product in two to five years. And that, in the meantime,may be a lot of fun to research and develop as far as possible starting with the ideas that will form this thread.

 

See, Doug, that's the problem with the used car salesman approach to posing your thread title and the first post of the thread. Nowhere do you say that this is about future boats out five years from now. In fact, you imply that it is about existing boats by suggesting that you may not know of a very small trimaran now that can fly its main hull.

Now, with your last post, you are moving the goalposts again, just like you did in the F18 thread. When are you going to be honest and simply state in the beginning what it is you wish to discuss and quit fooling around with this bait and switch thing? The only stipulation you mention in the opening post is, "Criteria is that it must be designed to fly the main hull."

Truthfully, Doug, that's not much of a criterion and could easily be done by any number of small tris already available with some very small mods. So, to answer that singularly stated criteria, there's no need to dream scheme and guess at a projected boat five years in the future when there's already product that can meet the expectations.


You go on to say, "...Can anyone think of reasons why this is not a good idea or why it hasn't been done(if it hasn't)?..."

There's generally two reasons why a boat type has never been done before:

1. Solidly knowledgeable designers have already looked at the genre and decided it wasn't worth their time to explore that niche and

2. The niche was simply overlooked and was sitting there, waiting to be explored. As to the niche having not been overlooked I give you:

Kurt Hughes, John Marples Jim Brown and myself, have all drawn small trimarans down to 10' LOA in the past and they have been put out there in front of the public to gauge the interest response level. The response has not been overwhelming in any case. Personally, I have done a 12 footer and a family similar 14 footer. http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/designs/solo12/index.htm Both boats sported modest, entry-level rigs to get folks out on the water where they can be taught the joys of sailing a multihull. They are light in weight (easily car-toppable) easily constructed and can be done so for very little cash outlay. The type establishes a potential that the owners would graduate, at a later date, up to an interesting and more developed concept.

Kurt Hughes did a really nice 3 meter design that had all kinds of earmarks as a sporty little ride and it, too, received what could best be called fairly modest success. There were hopes that the 3's would develop into a class that had wide appeal, but it just didn't pan out that way.

I'm of the opinion that cluttering-up a really small tri with all sorts of gadgetry in hopes of making it into a super fast ride that flies a hull, is going to be a one trick pony sort of boat, at best. Could it be done?... sure, lots of stuff can be done. The question remains, though as to... why?

Look at the Weta and my design for a slightly bigger, Weta-esque boat called the Montage. http://www.lunadadesign.com/montage-trimaranskiff.html The immediate appeal is that these boats can be sailed with friends. They have a fun little performance curve to be sure, but it is nowhere close to a flying main hull scenario. Having that flying hull potential in a small boat like this would drive the cost to produce it right through the roof and immediately shrink the available market to fringe sailors. Not a successful business proposition in a crappy global economy, much less the previous state of affairs in which the small boat market was seeing steady sales losses.

As a one-off design, for sure, anything goes, but that doesn't make it a viable boat for global interest, or even a worthwhile project unless you just get a serious Jones and have to work it out.

 

------------------------------
1) Bull! Oh, and there is going to be a lot more to this thread than the first post. Keep in mind the title: High Power Very Small Tri(s)

2) Prove it-lets see the details. Seriously, I'm very interested. Details.

3) wow!

 

Do your homework

 

You make a statement like this and when you're asked to prove it by providing details you say:

You really don't have a clue do you??!!

 

you pair really dont like each other do you?

 

You've just been given a list of issues and questions surrounding this concept of yours and rather than answer the substance of same, you reach down into that greasy bag of yours to offer-up the weakness of "you don't have a clue". One would think that you would be able to cogently argue the merits of the subject. By avoiding the substantive issues presented, you show a distinct lack of depth beyond sticking foils on everything that moves, or cluttering-up a design with more and more complex systems.

A proper response would answer each and every point made in turn. What we got, instead, is a guy who looks like he's trying to run for a political office. Questions have been posed and your response is to wander as far afield as possible in order to avoid that which has been asked.

At least a few nice folks are reading this thread. Wouldn't it be good to form an effective and reasoned response to the questions and issues that have been put forth, rather than run and hide, leaving invective behind as your calling card?

To put it in the vernacular, Doug... you've been given a chin high fastball and all you have thrown back is cotton candy fluff.