Electric Launch Design optimized for semi-displacement speeds

Regarding who might fund:

3 Electric Boat Stocks That Will Sail Higher by 2024 https://investorplace.com/2023/11/3-electric-boat-stocks-that-will-sail-higher-by-2024/

High-End Electric Boats for Sale from a Leading Manufacturer à USA Annapolis Maryland - Orphie Boats https://www.orphieboats.com/high-end+electric+boats+for+sale+from+a+leading+manufacturer+a+usa+annapolis+maryland-z203

Is EcoSmart 83 the name of your current model, Jurgen? I'd love to see more information about it, and would encourage you to go ahead and submit it as a contest entry regardless whether it conforms to the SOP. Has it been ISO 12217 Category C capacity/CL rated?

 

My opinion is that the necessary calculations and studies should be done/justified with the regulations currently in force (not papers from 1977) and with the help of CAD programs that any administration can accept. Many good CAD programs have free student versions so that should not be a problem. On the other hand, participants and judges should use similar tools to be able to validate and compare the various projects.
As for establishing several project categories and several awards, well, more work for the evaluators but for me the interesting thing would be to define a perfectly clear SOR and the project that best meets it will be the winner. Here the doubt arises as to what will be considered as "best meeting". (Sorry if my English is not correct. I hope you understand what I mean)

 

If Perry Van Oossanan is able to provide resistance data that can be plotted in my format, the boat with the minimum area under the curve should be apparent. If that winner has a lower human capacity than my target, someone should analyze economically the cost of building and operating a larger number of boats relative to the best performing boat that does comply.

But that might not tell the whole story, so what I'd like to do is to find someone to be a judge along with you, Ignacio, to evaluate the specifics of the electric power systems proposed. If not or along with PhilSweet I think of Nigel Calder, who writes for Professional BoatBuilder about electronics.

Does that work?

Concerning software, I see Jurgen (HJS) posts on DelftShip forums. Perhaps he is familiar with their basic power and prop analysis software, which is from Van Oossanen's country.

 

One of the problems I see is that participants can present optimal curves, which there is no way to check. In my opinion, to review and evaluate a project made by another designer, the judge should perform, if not all the calculations, at least some of them, with the same tool as the candidate and that this tool is valid for all. It is necessary to be sure that the differences are not due to problems with the software. That everyone calculates equally well or equally badly.
I do not dare to say anything about electricity or electronics but in this project, as in all, weight is decisive and the weight here will be very much determined by that of the batteries. Therefore, simplifying things a lot, it is a matter of looking, first of all, for batteries with the minimum weight for the power and autonomy that the boat needs. The naval designer does not have much to contribute here. It is just a matter of seeing what is on the market and adopting it.
In another order of things, once the minimum CL has been established, the boat that admits the greatest number of people should be awarded a bonus.
I am not clear on the criteria for choosing the winning project. I think that the optimal curve (what is optimal?) is probably not enough to define the best project. Although the truth is that I am not clear on the benefits, in terms of having a boat that produces satisfaction for the operator and the users, that can be derived from the curve considered optimal.

 

Finalizing the resistance prediction is where I see Perry playing his role. As I understand it he wants the hulls to come to him with basic resistance and prop calcs having been done, valid displacements, etc. From that point, he does the more detailed analysis. My area under the curve lFn 0.5-0.8 criterion is then applied.

We need to confirm the specifics of this hand-off with Perry when he''s back from vacation. Please let me know by email your availability to go over it with him, Ignacio.

Making a subjective call regarding other factors, and making your own subjective award, could be #2, up to you and whomever joins you as a judge.

Concerning the power package, I'm wondering if other people should be named to your judging panel who can speak to those issues. That could be a third award if there are judges available with the appropriate expertise.

 

Worth looking at for inspiration, power package included:
Isobel Combines Classic Looks and Modern Tech - Professional BoatBuilder Magazine https://www.proboat.com/2024/07/isobel/
First story in "Rovings," about 12 pages in.

In case that link doesn't work:
Electric Commuter: Isobel - Stephens Waring Yacht Design https://stephenswaring.com/yachts/electric-commuter/
Home - RAD Propulsion | Advanced Electric Boat Drive Systems https://radpropulsion.com/

 

I think your estimates are simply not correct here, Phil. A Nissan Leaf battery, at 0.3 tonnes, will do the job (see my post #113 of June 17). The many people pursuing electric boats, including the largest passenger ferry Incat Tazmania has built to date, are not stupid. Electric cars may have range or charging time issues, but they fundamentally work and are not that much heavier than their gas counterparts.

My contention is that the trend toward huge horsepower has made naval architects lazy. If we slow down and optimize for speeds achievable with lower horsepower the problems you speak of can be avoided.

As for grid-tie solar, I hear that as the sun sets some electric companies are drawing on the batteries of EVs, and are only recharging them in the late and early morning hours.

 

Only a non Naval Architect would say that.

Clients tell the NA what they want and will pay for, not the other way around!

 

It is just pointless management speak, which really means, they don't understand how or why things work or don't work, but wish to sound important and controlling the narrative. Ergo - state of the arts.
It is a meaningless means to convey what can be said, and is highly subjective, to the product/matter at hand....rather than a glib statement.
It does not assume anything...

 

If you follow this up with "saying what can be said" that might count as a meaningful contribution, AdHoc. And if you want to say something subjective, that's OK, too; just own it as your own op-ed.

My perspective accounts for the history of sailboat race handicappers settling on a formula only to have naval architects discover types that outperform the prediction. It is subjective interpretation of decades of following such developments. I see it all as learnings leading, ideally, to a process of continual improvement.

I acknowledge that saying naval architects have been "lazy" was itself lazy nomenclature. My view is that monohedron shapes have become the norm in part because of cheap horsepower, and that there is an environmental cost to perpetuating that cycle. And yes, that too should have caveats - monohedron hulls have their place, and HJS's boats are admirably light and proportionate IMHO.

 

As the author of your narrative, that is your role, not anyone else's.
Otherwise, don't use phrases/terms that are glib and meaningless, that add nothing to whatever message you're trying to espouse.

Replace 'state of the art', with say...'out of this world'.
Does it still make sense to you...???

 

Seeking partners, not nitpicking critics. If you pass yourself off as an expert, you ought to contribute something.

 

Sadly, you consistently and fundamentally fail to grasp how the "Design process" works.
Protestations to the critique, is QED.

If you wish to contribute the the field of naval architecture, you must do so with more than just platitudes and well rounded words with as much substance as candy floss.
Naval architecture is an engineering discipline based upon facts, not endless emotive and subjective words full of conjecture.

 

What facts have you supplied? Critique thy self.

I specifically described the process employed in designing the dominant IOR racer Matador^2 in the "Parting Shot" ending the current issue of Professional BoatBuilder. That has become a model for how many America's Cup design teams function. I can tell you of another process in which several offices submitted competing proposals (I was directly involved in developing one of the finalists).

Now it's your turn; please enlighten us about the design process.

 

Just to be 100% clear, when one of the judges on your "team" states this:

and this:

It is self evident!

Tansl is correct, and is reiterating what others have also noted on this thread.

Just words about...what....more words!