40ft Concept Design

What's safer than an enclosed lifeboat?

No side rails to walk on and a bow hatch.

Dare to look outside of the norm for inspiration.

http://www.tradevv.com/chinasupplie...na-Totally-Enclosed-Lifeboat-Rescue-Boat.html

 

There are plenty of people (yeah, more than others but that comes with the industry I guess) that gladly hammer eweryting down that´s not a proven design or technology from the 18 century.

If you, like many others, only settle with doing what others allready have done. I think you are on the right track. Come up with somthing crazy and then refine it to something usable, safe and fun.

Look at the Wally Eden yatch for example. Crazy? Sure! Possible? Not in the water yet but well on the way...

 

Floating drawer? Don't call it 'yacht' please

 

you will be the first one piuking all over, catapulted from one side to the other, breaking legs and other part, when your "yacht" hit force seven.
and then back to the hard, you will scream: never, never again.
i guarantee it
the law of the sea, is the only one, we are little and insignificant, so we have to have vessel in compliance with this law, and be award and humble in front of the sea.
monaco show is not a sea trial as to many people think.

 

There are ways to make a tapered transom work for a performance boat. It would need a bustle extending over the drives. This would be great for surface drives with a rudder. The Alpha Z, callan 62, Mystic 50 all have tapered transoms with a bustle copvering surface drives. Buzzi's boats all have surface drives and bustles, but are mostly straight. PM or email me if you want some help to take this design further.

 

WOW!!!! I bet that boat is super fast because it sure looks like it

 

larry, you made me think about why I’ve never met any great guitar players who believe their skills on the strings, also turn them into expert guitar builder/constructors, but hundreds of sea men who all thinks that hours at the helm are equal to hours at the naval architecture academy.

Why? Well, anyone with any knowledge of boat construction knows that the laws you need to master, are the "laws of physics" rather than any "laws of the sea". What you refer to as "laws of the sea" would by developers, researchers and designers in any field instead be called "context".

If you didn’t know the lunar rover was designed to drive on the moon, it would be a quite stupid looking poor working car right? That’s context. The starter of this thread did not give any context and I’m not really sure what he really wanted but any judgements about the design can therefore only be subjective. Looks and taste, has nothing to do with performance, functionality safety or seaworthiness and judging a construction without a context, (or even worse automatically putting it into your own preset context) will only reveal that you have absolutely no clue about what you talk about.

So digging deeper into "context" you will se that there are many aspects of boating. That there are proven and safe constructions that anyone hardly would like to be in when it’s force seven (boating is not only about hurricanes you know). Canoes for example!
So how can a boat be safe and proven but not able manage a storm? Context, larry. Why is there that all top offshore racers manage just fine without any ability for the crew to even exit the deck? Context! And why didn’t I se any ice classed high sea boats (except a Norwegian one) last time I was in Florida? Context!

I would sure need some new pants if I where sitting I my car on an open deck ferry in 30 ft waves and 100 k winds. Does that mean that an open deck ferry is a bad design?

A deep knowledge about what you call "laws of the sea" is important, but only for understanding the limits of the design.

Amateurs ….

 

Basically, without knowing the context in which this boat is designed to operate, we all should have restrained from making any comment. That's how I understand your words, and I do agree - partially.

The fact is, restraining from making comments is not what monrosm@shrewsb has asked us to do. He wanted to hear our opinions regarding seaworthiness and stability of his design.
Stability is impossible to assess from the attached picture, so people has jumped right to the issue of seaworthiness. But since the hull is not visible in the picture (only deck is) even seaworthiness can hardly be evaluated beyond few very basic observations relating to, for example, transom width or freeboard height.

So at the end the comments have concentrated on the only visible part of the boat - the deck design, trying to point out major ergonomic or functional flaws. I actually see them all as pretty much constructive objections. One need to read them beyond the verbal form, which often depend on the non-english native language of the writers, and go straight to the essence of the critics.

The alternative to that is to keep everyone's mouth shut and let the thread die, right after the first post...

P.S.:
I actually find it very interesting how the lack of design data in the opening post has lead everyone to formulate critics and opinions based simply on their personal experience and vision about what a boat should do and what it should look like. The lack of informations has led each one of us to create our default context and expectated characteristics. This guy has teased us at the beginning, and then has left us alone with our own immagination.

 

daiquiri - a grown up beavior would be then to restrain from comments I think. Just because someone puts out the wrong question do not mean that you must give them a wrong answer. Some did however try to get better understading, but anything else is like asking someone for street directions and getting a wrong answer just because the guy you asked didn´t have the guts to tell you that he didn´t know.

Not that I don´t think hand rails are nice to have in most cases but in terms of design and context. Even i you had them, do you know anyone who would like to hang on to them in this 220 mph context?

 

It's ok - we all have a right to disagree. As I do with this statement:

This forum would be quiet like a cemetery if people restrained from commenting each time an opening post is lacking some data...

I also guess that the others have a right to choose an existing boat type which operates in a "context" which they have envisioned, just like you did.
You have choosen an off-shore racing cat, where evidently a requirement for aerodynamic efficiency prevails over safe accessibility to the foredeck. Your experience, vision of boating, or a quick association has led you to that choice as a basis of comparison.

May I then choose this Pershing 46, which has come to my mind when I saw the rendering in the initial post, and which appears (to me) to be more akin to that design:



It does have speed, power, habitability, access to the foredeck and handrails.

It all fits, imho, my previous comment about the lack of initial data leading us to construct our own story of this boat.

Cheers

 

Maybe the irony in the end of my previous post wasn´t all that clear. Sorry about that but my choise of an offshore cat was to show that there very well are contexts where such a basic thing (on a boat) as handrails are utterly useless and even unsafe.

The forum do not have to be dead just because a poster lacks some data. I think that this thread was really constructive up utill the end of the first page.

 

Well personally I think the guys make very valid points with the criticism above but still an awesome looking boat, it really knocked my socks off.
I think you can overcome all of the above named design flaws and only sacrifice about 10-20% of the aesthetics. I would love to see your next revision.