speed poll

Discussion in 'Option One' started by Willallison, Jun 4, 2002.

?

time to move on - Speed Poll

Poll closed Jun 9, 2002.
  1. Speedy

    4 vote(s)
    57.1%
  2. Not Quite so Speedy

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  3. Very Speedy

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  4. and well .... downright slow !

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Willallison
    Joined: Oct 2001
    Posts: 3,590
    Likes: 130, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2369
    Location: Australia

    Willallison Senior Member

    Time to vote!

    From Paul:

    1.Speedy

    1. Max speed 25 - 28 knots
    2.Max Cruise 20 - 22
    3. able to maintain planing down to 12 knots and economical to operate throughout its speed range

    Later we could give consideration to the GTi Expre$$ version.

    From Mike:

    2. Not quite as speedy

    My personal vote on speed would be to have a semi-displacement design with high/low power options. The low power option would operate at displacement speed (i.e. 6 to 9 knots) and the high power option would provide the ability to plain and cruise at 16 to 24 knots. I think this approach allows the design to meet more needs and maximizes interest

    and from our 1st Poll:

    3. More Speedy...

    1. Max speed 45 + knots
    2. Cruise 30 - 40 knots
    3. Economical at cruise as well as displacement speeds.

    4. Less speedy...

    1.Max speed 7 knots
    2.Cruise speed 5-6 knots
     
  2. Willallison
    Joined: Oct 2001
    Posts: 3,590
    Likes: 130, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2369
    Location: Australia

    Willallison Senior Member

    Thought it was time to get things moving again.

    This Poll is open for 5 days - so will close at 3pm on the 9th of June
    ...... then we can move on to the next phase, which will be ......?
     
  3. duluthboats
    Joined: Mar 2002
    Posts: 1,604
    Likes: 57, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 779
    Location: Minneapolis,MN, USA

    duluthboats Senior Dreamer

    1, for me, for reasons already stated.
    Gary

    PS Thank you Will, for keeping things rolling.
     
  4. Nomad
    Joined: Feb 2002
    Posts: 462
    Likes: 2, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 12
    Location: Florida

    Nomad Senior Member

    I'll take two orders of MoRE SpeEDY please!! :)
     
  5. Willallison
    Joined: Oct 2001
    Posts: 3,590
    Likes: 130, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2369
    Location: Australia

    Willallison Senior Member

    Well, no surprises there.
    Unless I have my dates mixed up, the poll is now closed and it's on to the next bit.
    Paul (I think) suggested construction materials as our next issue.
    As the boat is meant for possible home construction, my suggestion would be for the design to be made up entriely of developable surfaces. That would allow for simple construction in either a ply or foam core.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If you could build this with CNC in semi-production or with cflex, would you still design with developable surfaces? Are they advantageous _only_ because of construction, or are there other reasons to use (or not to use) developable surfaces?
     

  7. Willallison
    Joined: Oct 2001
    Posts: 3,590
    Likes: 130, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2369
    Location: Australia

    Willallison Senior Member

    One of the design objectives for O-1 was the ability for home build, so we have to keep that in mind, but no, as far as I know, there are no particular advantages of using developable surfaces from a performance point of view (possibly quite the opposite ?). But if you want to build with conventional materials, made in flat sheets - such as ply or aluminium - it certainly speeds up and simplifies the build process.
     
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.