A career in yacht design

If you talk about big players in boat design, like the ones you have mentioned in one of your previous posts, It is definitively like you said. Frers, Farr and others of that caliber have it all in the house - designers, engineers, probably model-makers and who knows what else.

But I have personally done several engineering jobs for Design studios which could be (in those cases) more properly defined as "art studios". They could create some true artworks, both on boat's exterior and interior, yet they didn't have the necessary knowledge at home (or those jobs were too important to risk a failure...) to perform a reliable FEM/FEA and scantling work, so they prefered outsourcing it to external engineering firms.
It is also a matter of cost-cutting. If the job inflow is not constant, then it might cost them less to outsource a particular job to a trusted engineering firm than to pay an in-house engineer 12-months a year, sometimes to do nearly nothing. The negative side is that the know-how doesn't remain in the house, with all the risks related to that... That's where the word "trusted" assumes importance.

In one particular case, I was hired to perform the structural analysis and sizing of a propeller hub made of a very particular composite configuration. The size of that thing has really shaken some of my previous convictions about how jobs are done in the big shipyards. The hub was 2m in diameter, it was obviously a piece destined to an important ship, yet it's complete design was outsourced to third parties - and ultimately (probably after several passages) to me.

I also know (not from personal experience) that Feretti's modus operandi is lately like "wetted hull and the engineering is done by our in-house engineers, the rest above it is left to design studios" (actually to their "default" design studio - Zuccon). I also know that Cantieri di Sarnico should be working in a similar manner (or at least was so few years ago when I was in contact with their design office). They all have a rich database of hulls already built and of their characteristics, making them feel more confident in doing all the calcs by themselves.

So, at least here in Italy, I would say that (important) boatbuilding firms appear to have chosen the way of making a clear distinction and subdivision of competences. Each one does what he is good (no, more than that: excellent) in. And that's probably the reason why italian brands are today at the high-end of the powerboat industry, both by aesthetical and qualitative standards (without intending to offend anyone's professional or national pride).

S.

P.S.
For what regards the rest of this discussion, I know that we are all sometimes defending our "territory" in this small professional niche, but I believe it can be done without using words which offend the other people on a personal basis. I also have done it in the past, but have promised to myself that I will not fall that low anymore. We are all big guys now, the age of teenage fights is long gone...

 

Of course if you take someone like Bruce Farr or Doug Peterson, ask them to fully develop a 45 foot cruising boat with some guidelines, to be produced normally in E or S glass with Polyester or Vinylester resin, you could lock them in a room with no computer, no internet, no assistants, only a drafting table, pencils, mylar, paper, splines, weights, ships curves, planimeter, hand calculator, and reference books, and one by one the drawings would emerge that you could take to the local shipwright and build the boat.

This is how these men made their living for the early part of their careers, and they still have this responsibility in-house on some projects. No one becomes a successful Name Designer without the full skill set.

It is interesting the way the powerboat process is different from the sailboat business. For the many European sailing manufacturers, even in Italy (like Cantiere Se.Ri.Gi) they outsource the hull design to Name Designers, then do most of the Interior/Machinery/Electrical and even at times the deck themselves.

Of course the designer is not outsourcing the Engineering because he cannot do it. It is simply the preference of the yard, who is outsourcing various parts of the project. I have watched more than one design office working both ways (all responsibility vs contracted for a portion of the work) at the same time on different projects.

 

What kind of boats are you talking about? From what I know (not a NA or a designer) no FEM is used in majority of "small" boats (say less than 15 m) and quite often the whole design/engineering process is done by a single person often without much of a formal education of NA.

Many (most?) of the famous designers here in Scandinavia have a background from an completely different field. Surprisingly many of them have a education of interior design (for houses). Of course many of them made their reputation already in the 70's or 80's and the younger ones have often more formal education.

I have been quite surprised to see the lack of modern computer tools in "small" boat industry. I'm a CFD (full N-S) professional and have also been a group leader for FEM, but have never seen any boat releated CFD or FEM around here (apart from one sailmaker). For ships they are, of course, in common use, but I guess around here 99% of the ship FEM is not done by NA's, but FEM specialists with pure structural education and quite a low hour rate.

 

I am not talking about FEA of a full boat, but about single critical zones and mechanical pieces. Talking about powerboats in 12-14 meters range, plus one modular floating hotel room (very extravagant, but interesting concept). :idea:

I have seen them. In particular, I have seen the full CFD done for a 40-something feet planing powerboat hull of a renowned builder here in northern Italy. Can't make names because the results have turned out to be unreliable, as the person from builder's technical office had admitted to me. At the end, they preferred going the old way, by using the known statistical data on the existing hulls, and it worked. That particular CFD was performed by a firm dealing with props, not from Italy. That's all the info I can tell. Anyways, you are right - this study was an exception to the general situation in the world of small boats design.

 

Yes I understand that. But not even that is done around here. Perhaps due to not many pleasure power boats above 12 m in production.

Yes I have also seen some, but only academic for planning boats. Actually I'm also doing it myself just for learning and fun whenever I have spare time and software licenses. I think it could be quite accurate, but requires quite a lot of time and skill. Not many would be ready to pay for that.

Panel method based CFD for sailing boats is more often used, but not even that around here. How often even the top design offices really use it? Probably not for any production boat?

 

Quite true mate! So you act everytime...............

 

AD HOC , MIKE JOHNS & OTHERS here are extremely experienced in all aspects of design work & know far more than someone who is a stylist , they are among the most skilled ship designers on earth, almost anyone can be a stylist , it takes little training or comprehension of structural strength to basically draw pretty pictures

 

Paul illustrates here a generational stigma (please, no offense to anyone, as I'm no Spring chicken myself) which I often wonder about, and am actually currently wrestling with myself. As an engineering student in the early '90s I was compelled to produce drawings by hand, with the addition of CAD in our second year. But that was when CAD was coming into its own and emerging as a viable alternative to (and soon a generally acceptable replacement for) manual drafting. I, like all of my contemporaries, quickly adopted CAD as my default design tool and never looked back. Soon enough most engineering calcs were neatly packaged in specialty analysis software and the days of needing a pencil for anything were waning. This number crunching evolution gave birth to the pretty pictures we see most designers develop in addition to their lines plans. But the key in the use of these computer programs was that as a responsible designer one must know what the computer is doing for them, and simply take advantage of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of this tool.
So, my surprise was great when I enrolled in a reputable yacht design program (recently) and found myself thrown back (chronologically, but not necessarily functionally) in time by being required to produce manual drawings for my early assignments. Of course, the argument for this is valid and I certainly appreciate the need to be able to visualize and graphically produce all of the subtle shapes of a vessel in all of the various views to really make one think about what is being designed, and to consider all of the interactions of hull, deck, rig, accommodations, systems, etc. But this is something that can be, really needs to be, done regardless of the means by which lines go from brain to paper. Hence my “generational stigma” comment. Will it always be this way? Start with the old way and graduate to the new one?

Sorry for going off on that tangent. My point with all of this is that Paul’s observation that a knowledgeable boat designer (NA or otherwise) is capable of doing their job well without the need for outside help (collaboration as it’s also known) while being true is also somewhat myopic. For me it absolutely begs the question “Would that qualified designer be able to go solo (the locked room scenario) for any boat design?” Obviously the answer is “no”. The scope of the design will dictate whether sub-contracting/collaboration is warranted or not, not necessarily just the skills/knowledge/experience of the designer. Any professional knows their limitations, and even the best of the best can’t do everything for every design. They can do everything for some designs though, and that’s the proper route to take for a significant percentage of vessels. An FEA won’t always add anything to a design. But without it a lot of designs would never make it past the conceptual stage. There’s nothing wrong with taking advantage of someone else’s abilities to further your own agenda. This goes both ways. The “numbers guys” have a role to fill and may have no eye for styling or ergonomics. There are plenty of boats which migrate from functional hull form only to designers who then make stylistic changes and increase a boat’s curb appeal or accessibility or ergonomic suitability. The bottom line is (or should be, without egos making decisions) that if a stable, strong, safe and efficient vessel is unappealing to the eye or difficult to use then it needs to be changed, and sometimes the same person that made it stable, etc. may not be the right person to make it pretty, etc. And vice versa. But then again, sometimes they are.

 

I must have been unclear with my comment.

I was not in any way saying the use of the "old tools" was any better than "new tools". You can take out all reference to hand tools and replace with "CAD System" in my earlier comment if you like. No stigma at all. All the big name offices changed to CAD by the mid-80s. In fact, Peterson worked with the folks at MacSurf when they were trying to get input from designers on how their new yacht design program worked. The first Peterson hull design worked into MacSurf was used in their sales literature for years.

What you say is correct. All the Name Designers work both ways. Often it is not their decision, it is often the decision of the client. I know some offices are more than happy to simply provide the linesplan, keel plan, rudder plan, and sailplan and be paid handsomely for that. The client then has their own people do the deck layout, interior arrangement, scantlings, laminate schedule, mechanicals, etc.

It is actually a good thing for all parties to have projects that brings together different skill sets. Everyone learns something that can be taken to the next project. Boatbuilders have good ideas, composite engineers have good ideas, and the yacht designers have good ideas. Before the mid-80s there really weren't third party composite engineering services. The boats built prior to that were really collaborations between the designers and builders.

One thing to keep in mind is the "designer" (as say Farr, Peterson, Frers, etc) is not making a pretty picture that someone else makes into a workable hull. These guys produce the actual hull shape. It isn't contracted to anyone like SP, it isn't done by some engineering company. So don't misunderstand the term "designer". It has nothing to do with adding a "look" to something someone else designed. The hull shape, hydrostatics, size/shape/locations of rig, keel, rudder, etc are done by the name "designers".

If you recall the old America's Cup 12 meter boats you should think about KZ7. Bruce Farr, Yacht Designer, not a Naval Architecht and not even a college graduate, produced a design for a 12 Meter in glass composite. The leading NAs at the time said it could not be done to meet the Lloyd's requirements and they continued to build in aluminum. KZ7 did not win the ACup but she was and is still the fastest 12 meter ever built.

 

Paul,

To be a bit nit-picky.......Was the KZ7 design not produced by Bruce Farr International Inc.? That is to say....her design was the product of a team of people....not one guy in a locked room. I'm guessing there were at least 4-5 guys in the Farr office at the time? Including Russell Bowler, an engineer and specialist in composite construction.

Today every successful design office has a number of disciplines at least on call if not in house. Engineering is one of the vital ones, a hydrodynamicist with a test tank may be another, artwork and styling may be another, interior design another, and CFD and FEA and a host of other software applications. All these skills may be required to fulfill any contract. At BKYD we used to sub contract transom lettering (design) to Vince Bartolone in California....it wasn't a living but it was work.

 

Paul unfortunately clouds his otherwise useful discussion with bouts of trollish-ness.

Scott Carter

I would not agree completely with this statement:

“Would that qualified designer be able to go solo (the locked room scenario) for any boat design?” Obviously the answer is “no”.

There are plenty of non-degreed designers who have been and still are solo, making a living from soup-to-nuts in designing boats. Now, keyword here is any boat design. Most of these solo designers have a narrow band of designs that they are within their capabilities. Some will turn away work that ventures outside this realm. Others will engage the appropriate expertise when needed.

This is not unlike the Architectural industry up until the early 90s. You did not have to be a degreed architect to be considered an 'Architect'. The AIA stepped in and made sure that could no longer be the case. However, that does not mean you can't design a house and there are plenty of very talented home designers out there without an architectural degree.

There have been rumblings about doing the same thing with the marine industry (i.e., requiring a NA or some other specific degree).

Regardless, having a degree does not automatically dictate that one is a 'designer'. Reading between the lines in Paul's very tiring rant, he makes the same point.

To the original poster, you certainly can make a career in yacht design. The best way is to latch on to a designer who's willing to work with you in some sort of aprentice role. Pretty tough these days as a lot of the un-named designers are not getting a lot of work and the 'named' designers are keeping their work close at hand. You'll need to be willing to work for free for a while. Build up a portfolio. One designer told me that you need to draw EVERY day. Like Steven King who says you need to write EVERY day if you want to be a writer.

And of course, even with trolls like Paul B, sites like this are extremely useful.

Good luck!