changing the shape of the boat

[Vega]

Thanks Doug, interesting stuff.
A safety feature, preserving the boat in bad weather while running (bow up) and allowing more freedom on the design, optimizing planning in good weather (bow down). We will see if it works

[Guillermo]

Some other interesting possibilities arise, like the technology of 'smart' surfaces.
Have a look at Smart Duct pages:
http://www.continuum-dynamics.com/lib-pro-duct.html
as well as attached pdf document.
Cheers.

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by tamkvaitis

To create ultimate downwind performance the boat should have huge amount of flat areas which would help to plane easily, but these flat surfaces would create very uncomfortable motion then going upwind. So I thout about changing the shape of the boat then sailing.

Howdy,

This is not right.

Bethwaite boats show quite the opposite - that was their breakthrough.

Before Julian built his skiff moth derived Prime 18 footers everyone was trying to get as much "planing surface" as possible.

Julian went completely the other way with boats of much less surface area that require much less sail area to sail at much better speeds.

The other areas the boats were improved were a much lower rocker - which would normally mean that the transom would drag - but in this case the transom is much narrower and the crew move forward anyhow until the dynamic lift is enough to get the bow up.

Also instead of the flat sections being all at the back of the boat (we all thought the boat planed on the back - didn't we :-) - we used to all design the backs of our boats to go upwind and the bows veed to go upwind, Julian subverted that by having a much flatter but narrow section right though the body of the boat by choosing a more "parabolic" section for the bow - though I think Michael Nash may have been heading in that direction already with his NS14 designs.

Nope - big wide sterns are slow on average - the bethwaite boats don't have them.

Michael Storer

[Vega]

Originally Posted by BOATMIK

The other areas the boats were improved were a much lower rocker - which would normally mean that the transom would drag - but in this case the transom is much narrower and the crew move forward anyhow until the dynamic lift is enough to get the bow up.

On a 60ft boat having as crew a lonely skipper I believe that he would have difficulty in doing that.

[Ramona]

Originally Posted by BOATMIK

Also instead of the flat sections being all at the back of the boat (we all thought the boat planed on the back - didn't we :-) - we used to all design the backs of our boats to go upwind and the bows veed to go upwind, Julian subverted that by having a much flatter but narrow section right though the body of the boat by choosing a more "parabolic" section for the bow - though I think Michael Nash may have been heading in that direction already with his NS14 designs.

The Bethwaites could have saved a lot of time by just studying the lines of a Finn dinghy. How could a hull designed in about 1936 be so right. Hull forms like the NS14, early moths etc. "jump" on to the plane, the Finn merely goes faster as it goes from displacement to planing mode.

[BOATMIK]

Originally Posted by Ramona

The Bethwaites could have saved a lot of time by just studying the lines of a Finn dinghy. How could a hull designed in about 1936 be so right. Hull forms like the NS14, early moths etc. "jump" on to the plane, the Finn merely goes faster as it goes from displacement to planing mode.

The Finn is a very wonderful boat - so I partially agree - but the modes are quite different - you just need to look at the bow wave of a Finn to see the difference.

Any wave or spray created by the boat is drag - and the Finn does have a big big spray pattern up front when she is going.

The NS14 doesn't. And neither NS14 or Finn have the high speed angle quite as well sorted asthe 18 - though the NS is closer if you look at the bottom shapes.