While I am reluctant to chime-in on many of these early design debates, I was pulled to this one for a couple of reasons.
First of all, I need to say that I totally support the words and advice of IIan Voyager, Messabout & Ad Hoc. My own 70 years of designing boats of all types, totally backs up their conclusions, so yes, for anyone new at this, it’s worth taking note of their experience, without giving up on new ideas that might potentially solve old problems.
Secondly, the originator of the thread was looking for the pros and cons of various hull shapes, say a flat bottom compared to a rounded one etc. and as I was asked to address that specific issue in 2018 by PBB, perhaps pointing the reader to the article could be helpful. See this link:
https://smalltridesign.com/pdfs/W17ProBoatOctNov2017.pdf
As many will know, although I started sailing and designing small sailboats in the 50’s, I spent 40 years designing far bigger fish - ships up to 600ft. Many might then well ask, “what the
heck has that got to do with light sailboats and trimarans etc??” Well, a lot more than you might think.
Unlike most sailboats, test models are made for most large ships and as these models are typically 12-20ft long, the visual results and data collected can be
directly applied to small boats, unless a lot of heeling is concerned. (My background also puts my ‘ear to the ground’ re other related ‘ship’ developments – see below). As the reader will see from the above mentioned article, there’s definitely a case to be made for the simple box section
provided the hull is slim, as is the case for a trimaran. Keeping the sides vertical and the displacement as low under the water as possible, is the secret for low wave-making. This same concept led to the creation of a Norwegian trimaran ferry that subsequently convinced the US Navy to adopt a similar ‘boxy main hull’ for their new 45 knot LCS ships (Littoral Combat Ships with ‘Littoral’ meaning ‘near shore’). I invite readers to check this out (Wiki can help) and if any of you still doubt its performance, do you really think the US navy would throw $billions into ‘a significant series’, with several more repeat order on line for 2019-22, despite the prototype being 3 times over budget? Of course, this is ‘a motor boat of sorts’, so the amas (outriggers) need only be ½ length, but just look at the section of that hull and then a glance at my W17 might start to make more sense.
In the case of the sailing trimaran W17, I have also done all I can to enhance windward performance and minimize lateral slip or ’leeway’, so as explained in my article, this will offset the potential gain from using a rounded hull at most upwind speeds, something particularly advantageous when sailing in shallow water when the W17 can still go to windward with under 2ft draft.
So hope this ‘somewhat different take on things’ is of interest to readers.
But yes, it’s important, before ANY new design can be successful, to establish what IS your personal SOR? (Statement of Requirements) and as wisely pointed out by ….. your noted SOR would indeed require a
much larger boat, with something like my W22 being a
minimum size for your needs. So. as others before me have said, either cut your needs or up your budget and boat size, as your initial plan is just not technically feasible without winning the lottery. Good luck to you.
Please note that many more quasi-tech articles that might answer future questions, are available free at
www.smalltridesign.com