Groot Cross-Bow design

I see...

So your "success" is more down to salesmanship and marketing than anything "technical" and "advancement" in hydrodynamics as such. Since if there is a benefit, as you claim, you would be able to point me to some detailed independent research to verify your claims. It seems that you cannot...oh well

 

Mr. MD GSD,
Some of your ships are definitely looking very different from what is a common perception of cargo and work vessels' look. But I am personally failing to see the innovation from the published pics. I can see plumb bows on some of your designs and raked-back bows on some others, but nothing that wasn't already in use on other types of vessels - even for centuries (see my post #27 about traditional workboats in the Med). So what is exactly that you claim as innovation, which would justify the use of (I presume registered) name "Groot Cross-Bow"?
Thanks in advance.

 

Indeed...trying to take "ownership" of a "name" for a design feature that has been around for centuries. And then to make things worse, making unsubstantiated and very bold claims:

It is just marketing spin...

 

I tend to withold criticism until something is totally without merit or clearly copied from an existing design. From my perspective your cargo ship bow concept is a break from the past (with regard to cargo ships) and you can call it what you want (Groot Cross-Bow or whatever name suits you). So long as it performs well and customers continue to order them, they must be happy about something.

Do post additional info on how the growing fleet performs. Video in rough seas (per Douglas sea scale) & personal testimony from the ship captains would be appreciated. Emperical test results are the best salesman.

Various Dutch ship designs have proven reliable for centuries and I hope you continue that trend.

Best wishes,

Joseph

 

I want to point out that mine was not a criticism, but a request for more info. I am trying to understand what are distinctive characteristics of this bow design and differences between it and the previously mentioned examples of traditional boats with apparently very similar bow shapes. I presume that TT tests and sea-trials must have clearly defined the advantages and established distinctive features which characterise and justify the adoption of new name for this kind of bows.
Cheers

 

On furhter look, it appears others have ventured into this area and claimed similar results.

e.g.

http://www.ulstein.com/kunder/ulstein/cms66.nsf/doc/3A6662B6DEF379B3C12576C70031E17D

From a crew fatigue standpoint I would prefer to have the bridge aft. As for the uniqueness of design the approach is catching on. I would like to see more videos of these boats in action in rough seas, and to get some first hand reports from skippers.

What bothers me is the enviromentally friendly marketing buzzwords (e.g. "The unique and environmentally-friendly X-BOW® hull line design ....". Realistically they should restrict praise to "improved fossil fuel efficiency" and leave it at that. All this talk of greener worlds from fossil fuel burning ships is nonsense.

Both hulls will knife through waves with better performance that's for sure. Their bows remind me of today's latest surfskis, which pierce very nicely through waves...very efficient. The vid below explains the benefits of the narrower hull lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIB_qbidvPM

-Safe entry into waves
-Safer workplace
-Lower spray
-Lower accelleration levels (more fuel efficient).

After looking at these hulls they do remind me of Olympic K1/surfski hulls slicing through the water. There is definitel much less up/down motion. Rather, they slice right through. They have a lower profile for sure, but the benefits of the narrower hull are clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaJc8B_cCcI (some cool rock music too)

 

Groot Cross Bow... more like an angular rip off of X-Bow. Same principle, less curvy.
Also from what I heard, Groot team is focused only on cargo ships - like if they're trying to flood that market before X-bow will switch to that (they already have some projects of containerships, MPV, etc).