Proboat Design Comp 2 Results

I was just looking at the three winning designs in Professional Boatbuilder's Design Challenge 2, and I have to say that I was a little dissappointed in what I saw. Not so much in regards to the designs themselves, more in the similarity between all three and their rather conventional nature.
I mean no disrespect to the designers, and realise that the design goals that were set weren't really all that challenging, but weren't there any practical entries that showed a bit of thinking outside the box?
I await with eager eyes to see some of the other entries that they are going to publish in the next issue....
Space is a constraint, of course, but I think they should publish them all, then list the winners... it'd certainly be just reward for the many hours that I'm sure all the entrants put into producing them...

 

I agree in every matter!!!!! Three conservative designs and no real challenge that would need some new ways of thinking. After Design Challenge No1, which was practically the same but at a smaller boat it seems that the government has fixed the needs for tomorrows boats: "Same procedure as usual but with a little green paint on it".

What we need is a radical change of thinking if we want to save our planet, not baby steps into the right direction with a friendly wink to the big buisiness.
If we want to do boating for pleasure in the future, we must learn that it is important to burn no more than a quarter gallon of fuel per hour or even less. Of course this means that we have to go slower than today and that we use green technology. We must learn to be modest and sustainable. We have nearly learned it with using wood and catching fish, why not with oil and transport?

Design Challenge III ist about fast and safe raid-boats, that seems to be a good step into the right direction and a very modest way of boating ... a very satisfying too. I will participate with a design for the first time.

Grrreetings from the North Sea Coast, Michel

 

Well, the constraints regarding the beam, weight and internal accomodations have excluded the use of multihulls. There was also an implicit low-cost requirement, which comes from the trailerability, affordable launching and the low fuel-consumption requirement, but also from the current worldwide economical situation.
So, once you know that you have to create a monohull, that it has to be light and fuel-efficient, seaworthy and possibly simple and economical - well, you don't have many shapes left to choose from. The final result - one classical semi-displacement and two common planing hulls shapes. The rest is mostly aesthetics and details.
I pretty much agree with your observations, however. Perhaps more courage from those who are defining competition requirements, rather than from those who partecipate as competitors, would be necessary.

 

OK, one of winning designs is mine

Yes, I also agree that they look similar, but this is obviously result of optimization within very tight restrictions. We played with milthihull option and found that it will not work. We tried number of length - power - weight options and found the length we should stay with. Actually I can post some results of analysis...

As to the 'lack of fresh thinking' - well, we are practicing designers and develop practical designs within requirements. This time maybe we did it better; next time someone else will succeed.

 

I didn't know it was yours, but somehow I felt it might be, when I saw the pics of the boat and the nationality. My compliments for the result.

 

And this is the interior...

 

Thanks!

Enclose the anaylsis based on performance condition. Calculations of resistance are made: for monohull using Wolfson High Speed Craft method; for catamaran using Molland's series. As one can see, due to limited beam and unfavorable hulls interaction there is no advantage to use cats for this contest excerpt for very small lengths. This is only part of analysis we made...

 

I dare to disagree.

Although one can say that there is nothing revolutionary in all three designs, they are sure not just boring similar.

The already mentioned restrictions don´t allow much "out of the box" thinking.
And the fact, that designers make a living with their products, restricts such contest even further.

What is it worth to have won the race, when the horse is a cow?

One has to be able to sell a design in the end, and market acceptance is never out of the box.
Look at your local marina, the best selling crap looks like photo copied from any competitior.

BTW
I did notice Mr. Nazarov´s name and wanted to congratulate, but my access here did not function well. so:

Congratulations Albert!

Richard

 

Congratulation! You have designed a very good boat and deserve that win!
My critics shouldn't go to the designers adresses. They placed their designs into the given parameters and did their best.

My opinion is, that the initiator of the contest lacked a view for the needs of the future by setting the desired speed to 15 knots and a fuel consumption of 2 gallons per hour (I think). This is not really economical, not today and not in the near future.

Lets say that the parameters would have called for a simple cruising boat for two, capable of doing 8 or 10 knots and trailability and using as little fuel as possible.
Then the designs would have a very different appearence. That could have been boats with really low resistance hulls with electric motor and batteries, charged by solar panels and wind generator, maybe a natural gas generator for longer trips or unfavorable natural conditions. Thats all possible with today's "off the shelf" technology.

Greetings from the North Sea Coast, Michel

 

Ganz sicher nicht, Michel.

Sure not Michel.

Regards
Richard
..von der Nordseeküste

 

If they do it, judging will not be possible based on designs only. For such unconventional craft only prototyping and testing works, specially talking about electrical propulsion and other methods.

 

What is it worth to have won the race, when the horse is a cow?

Its worth a bucket of gold if we have tomorrow no horses anymore.


May be I'am a little to idealistic and I'am definetly not looking for comercial success in the first line. My understanding of a design contest is to bring out new ideas and to try something new which is marking the way into the future.

I didn't know that the PB contest is a product concept catalogue for professionals who want to directly sell their designs and it is judged in this way.

The time available for develloping a design for the contest is nearly half a year. Time enough to work together with persons or companies who try to place their green developments in the market and check out together what is possible today ... or tomorrow. These People have the numbers, data and know the needs of their products. It would be an investment into the future, not a direct sale option.

@Richard: Why not? With the big Torqueedo a friend of mine brought a standart Dragonfly 800 up to 7,5 knots and this tri is weighing in at nearly 1000kg. Ok, I have no informations about battery capacities needed to run a boat for hours as he had just two 180 AH batteries coupled for the test, but this small base is tried and tested.


Greetings from the North Sea Coast, Michel

 

well done Alik and good job yet do you have some more renders to show ?
they might make me -and others- like the concept better
becouse i have to say when i first saw the 3 boats in PB
i had the same dull feeling as others mentioned

 

On small scale and / or inland waterways, yes there are some scenarios where El. propulsion CAN be a sensible alternative. On coastal or ocean going boats it is bare nonsense and remains to be for the next 20 or more years.

We have had this discussion frome here to 1488 and from Pontius to Pilatus.

When you search "Hybrid" you find a gazillion of bright ideas and perpetuum mobiles, but not one single application which could be called sensible, functional and affordable.
And given the fact that el. energy storage has nothing new to provide for the next decade, it will remain so.

Regards
Richard