Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors

Go Back   Boat Design Forums > Design > Powerboats
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Most Recent Posts Gallery Images Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-20-2009, 10:33 AM
HJS HJS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rep: 288 Posts: 164
Location: 59 45 58 N 019 02 15 E
Deep V-bottom

An efficient alternative to the deep V-bottom.

JS

www.sassdesign.net
Attached Files
File Type: wmv 23 okt 09 movie.wmv (4.16 MB, 242 views)
File Type: pdf Efficient alternative to deep V-bottom.pdf (475.9 KB, 547 views)
__________________
www.sassdesign.net
I'm not lost, I'm just uncertain of my position.
I'm still confused, but on a higher level
Reply With Quote


  #2  
Old 12-20-2009, 01:22 PM
PAR's Avatar
PAR PAR is offline
Yacht Designer/Builder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep: 3693 Posts: 14,137
Location: Eustis, FL
Almost anything is going to be more efficient then a deep V hull form.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-20-2009, 01:37 PM
Yellowjacket Yellowjacket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Rep: 447 Posts: 446
Location: Landlocked...
The a deep v obviously gives a better ride than a flatter hull of similar beam, but it also makes sense that if you narrow the beam you are going to get less slamming and therefore improve the ride, and the narrower beam but flatter hull could be more efficient than the fatter deeper v.

What this says is that the payoff in efficiency is there for the narrower, flatter hull. We don't often see an "apples to apples" comparison of things like this. This is why boats are interesting, lots of ways to skin the cat so to speak.

What is also not mentioned is that the narrower boat is going to have less interior room, so nothing is for free.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-20-2009, 01:50 PM
PAR's Avatar
PAR PAR is offline
Yacht Designer/Builder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep: 3693 Posts: 14,137
Location: Eustis, FL
The premise I read was efficiency not comfort. Comfort is a much more complex equation. Flat bottoms are the second most efficient hull form in terms of efficiency. Of course given beam, available power and power to weight remain the same.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-20-2009, 02:46 PM
Tad's Avatar
Tad Tad is offline
Boat Designer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rep: 2234 Posts: 2,134
Location: Flattop Islands
Which is exactly why I used the form in my WoodenBoat/ProBoat Design Challenge entry....... This form is fine for a mostly empty hull, for a heavily loaded boat you need to be careful you don't run out of planing surface at too low a speed.

SS185Lines.dwf
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-20-2009, 03:04 PM
HJS HJS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rep: 288 Posts: 164
Location: 59 45 58 N 019 02 15 E
Soft ride with a slim bottom

The boats have, as mentioned, the same volume and weight.
The difference is the length, deadrise and beam, especially the chine beam, 1.95 respective 1.34 meters.
The chine beam makes the different in vertical acceleration more than the deadrise.

More in my contribution to the PBB design challenge, Victoria


HJS
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Victoria eng 090323 short.pdf (1.07 MB, 350 views)
__________________
www.sassdesign.net
I'm not lost, I'm just uncertain of my position.
I'm still confused, but on a higher level
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-28-2009, 09:26 AM
kengrome kengrome is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Rep: 305 Posts: 719
Location: Gulf Coast USA
Quote:
Flat bottoms are the second most efficient hull form in terms of efficiency.
What is the most efficient hull form?
__________________
Kenneth Grome
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-28-2009, 10:50 AM
fcfc fcfc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rep: 399 Posts: 744
Location: france,europe
Efficiency, but for what purpose ?

What you gained by reducing chine beam has been lost in stability. And the lengthening of the hull is detrimental to parking the boat and the trailer.

Is it worth it ?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-08-2010, 04:51 AM
HJS HJS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rep: 288 Posts: 164
Location: 59 45 58 N 019 02 15 E
The purpose of a more efficient boat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fcfc View Post
Efficiency, but for what purpose ?
Is it worth it ?
An efficient boat needs a smaller engine, uses less fuel, less emissions and therefore a cleaner world to live in. Furthermore, my approach is more seaworthy than a deep V-bottom.
This is the positive purpose of optimizing my crafts.

Stability is the same as on a normal boat with 17-degree V-bottom.
This has been both calculated and checked on the boats in the water.

That the boat is 10% longer and 10% slimmer than the normal boat hardly affects manageability on a trailer. In addition, the boat is intended to be used primarily in water and not on land.

As I see it, I have not lost anything of what is important to me.
Therefore, I see that the result is worth all the work behind these designs.

I do not know what calculations and practical experience you are basing your opinion on that my boat would be unstable and unpractical. I look forward to concrete calculations and descriptions.

js

www.sassdesign.net
__________________
www.sassdesign.net
I'm not lost, I'm just uncertain of my position.
I'm still confused, but on a higher level
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-08-2010, 01:21 PM
Tad's Avatar
Tad Tad is offline
Boat Designer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Rep: 2234 Posts: 2,134
Location: Flattop Islands
JS.....

Your Victoria comparison seems to indicate differences of much more than 10%, both in length and chine beam. What are we missing? Are you meaning that the waterline beam difference is 10%?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-08-2010, 02:20 PM
HJS HJS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rep: 288 Posts: 164
Location: 59 45 58 N 019 02 15 E
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad View Post
JS.....

Your Victoria comparison seems to indicate differences of much more than 10%, both in length and chine beam. What are we missing? Are you meaning that the waterline beam difference is 10%?
I am referring to the report in the first post of this thread
not the Victoria design

js
__________________
www.sassdesign.net
I'm not lost, I'm just uncertain of my position.
I'm still confused, but on a higher level
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:11 PM
gonzo's Avatar
gonzo gonzo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Rep: 1879 Posts: 9,201
Location: Milwaukee, WI
The graphs show boats of different displacement. The beam is the same, but the cat has the same beam on deck. The added waterline beams are much less. It is a misleading claim typical of bs sales brochures.
__________________
Gonzo
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-08-2010, 03:31 PM
HJS HJS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rep: 288 Posts: 164
Location: 59 45 58 N 019 02 15 E
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzo View Post
The graphs show boats of different displacement. The beam is the same, but the cat has the same beam on deck. The added waterline beams are much less. It is a misleading claim typical of bs sales brochures.
The graphs in the first post shows two boats with the same displacement 1200 kg and the same volume around 8 m^3 and about the same stability.
Otherwise the comparison would be meaningless.

js
__________________
www.sassdesign.net
I'm not lost, I'm just uncertain of my position.
I'm still confused, but on a higher level
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-08-2010, 04:58 PM
gonzo's Avatar
gonzo gonzo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Rep: 1879 Posts: 9,201
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Volume and displacement are not related. It says that the graph is dimensionless. The narrow boat has lifting or dual chines, something not explained properly. It is not a valid comparison.
__________________
Gonzo
Reply With Quote


  #15  
Old 06-26-2010, 04:06 PM
HJS HJS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rep: 288 Posts: 164
Location: 59 45 58 N 019 02 15 E
Latest testrun

This is a powerboat concept with high efficiency and excellent seaworthiness of the entire speed range. The new slim and flat bottom requires 15 - 25% less power than the deep V-bottom. The new boat has equal vertical accelerations at 29 knots as the deep-V boat at 20 knots in all sea conditions. These figures are scientific mesured by students at Marina System Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan in Stockholm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXDfQqxJ_pM
__________________
www.sassdesign.net
I'm not lost, I'm just uncertain of my position.
I'm still confused, but on a higher level
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help building a 17' long x 50" bottom flat bottom aluminum boat Loewman Boat Design 22 11-21-2011 01:31 PM
26' Pad bottom with 2 step bottom hull mold only johnboat75 Marketplace 1 03-07-2009 08:00 AM
deep cycle battery's yipster Boat Design 18 06-14-2006 07:47 PM
Modified Deep V jfblouin Boat Design 4 02-14-2005 04:38 PM
catamaran vs. Deep V Armand Salese Powerboats 3 03-12-2002 07:29 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2014 Boat Design Net