Construction

[Nomad]

Any others? If so Post and I'll start a new one and have our Friend Jeff delete this one............................

[Willallison]

There are most definitely others. Not the least of which is that which we've been talking about - a combination of construction materials. But I think you may have jumped the gun a little Nomad - I think we could do with a bit more input before we put this one to the vote

[Nomad]

Sorry, I thought I was but wanted to give it a try.....................

[Jeff]

Well we can get it going at least and see which way people are leaning. We can always extend the poll if we need more time, and if people want to change their vote as the discussion continues, I can take care of that if anyone posts that they voted initially but then want to reconsider. If we come up with something revolutionary that's not on the table now, or some overwhelming evidence, we can always revisit as we did with the speed profile after some more thought.

[Nomad]

Thanks Jeff, and sorry for the extra hassle.

[Jeff]

No hassle at all. I'm just having fun with this like the rest of you. I appreciate everyone taking the time to take part - it should turn out to be quite an interesting project for us to feature

[Jeff]

Although it's not really up to me, we should probably also do this like we did the other poll: if anyone has a vote for an option not listed above simply post what you would like to vote for and we can count it directly (and as the moderator I can also go ahead and add the option with your vote to the poll above - so if it's not listed post with a brief description and I'll add your vote and the option for others to vote on).

Edit: Oops, I see you covered that in your first post. Sorry for nudging in on your poll Nomad

[Willallison]

In that case....

I'd like to vote for the multi-option choice. Flat-panel construction, which allows GRP, foam core, wood core, ply, aluminium.
ie a bit of all of the above!

[8knots]

I am with you Will, I think this will give the backyarder the chance
to work in what he is most comfortable with. But.. I do see problems for the designer as far as an endless list of all the scantlings for the different builds. Math Math Math. and confusion for the new guy... 8

[Portager]

I agree with the all of the above approach. It allows the home builder to choose the material he is most comfort with and it allows production hull builder to build using their lowest cost method.

I also agree that this will make a lot more work for the designed and some methods may end up too heavy or too weak for the GTXpen$$ive option.

Maybe we should decide which method should be the primary or first design and then which would follow. Just a thought.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[Polarity]

I'm going with cored glass - mainly because I think the hull should be a pro-build with the option for the rest to be home or small yard completion - thoughts on this: - http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...=2903#post2903 , so I would think this option would be the cheapest/most efficient for the builder once the mold is built.

Cheers

Paul

[Nomad]

It's ok Jeff I can forgive you...........possably dont push it!! lol thanks again.

[Willallison]

I posted this in regards to a discussion I was having with Tom under the "Market for O-1" thread, but thought it might be of more relevance here. It represents my thoughts on a possible hull shape for O-1 using "flat panel" construction, ie developable surfaces:

Ah! Now I see where you're coming from Tom. A section of the hull in say the aft 1/3 would indeed resemble the centre hull of a tri.
I've obviously not explained my suggestion properly. I'm not proposing that we adopt the Wally hull shape per-say. More that we could adopt a hull with higher angles of deadrise up f'wd to improve its rough water capabilities. True, a very fine entry, like the Wally's, would compromise interior space too much, but I think a balance could be struck to give us a little of both.

Here ia few images of the sort of thing I mean. All developable surfaces, with a fine entry, flattening to lower deadrise aft. It probably still carries too much V aft at the moment, but it should demonstrate my suggestion better than I have so far described with words....




__________________
Will

[Willallison]

hmm - didn't get the pics - which I wanted - and did get the words, which I didn't

To see the pics, go here - http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...=3187#post3187

[tom28571]

Will,

As professor Higgins would say "By george, I think you've got it".

This looks very close to the hull shape I use when the deadrise angle is adjusted to the displacement to maintain the chine at the proper depth. Forward hull volume is helped by the chine flats quite a bit. With this fine a bow, it will still be difficult to get all the stuff aboard that some people want. If you want a bow and hull sections that will allow running in some comfort in waves at speed, there are compromises to be made in the interior volume and vice-versa.

g'dye