Size Range Poll

I THINK we are ready to vote on atleast a size range. So come on give it a shot what do you got to lose?

 

If you want a different sizes say 24' or 37' please post so we all can be happy happy friends!!!!

 

Does anyone in here know why I can not edit the poll. I was playing around with it and it says I don't have the privallages.
I now think I am suffering from emotional deprovision due to me feeling unspecial. lol

 

Why a longer hull? I may be wrong, (it has happened before) but it’s my thought that as the length to beam ratio is increased and if we keep nearly the same volume, we will be able to reach the speed goal with a smaller motor(s). (cheaper) This also puts the motor(s) farther away from the main cabin, and might allow for an aft stateroom, which would isolate the motor(s) even more. All of this just by stretching things a little.

There are many members here. I would like to hear your opinions. Don’t forget to vote on your choice.

Gary

 

Gary,
I too can vaguely recall one or two occaisions when it seems I may perhaps have been just a little incorrect......
However, whilst I know that the waterline length & length beam ratio have a marked effect on a displacement craft, I'm not too sure how it will effect the achievable speed for a given hp for a boat like Option1, which is anything but displacement!
A long, narrow boat is easier to push than a beamy one and will tend to be smoother into a head sea - in that regard, longer is definitely better. But I can't see a big reduction in the power required - say a drop from 300hp to 200 - enough to save us a significant amount of $.

Also, given that we are trying to build a fairly light boat in the 1st place, how would you propose that we go from say 28ft to 33ft without a corresponding increase in displacement?

 

I just posted a rant over on the Option 1 thread on this subject and will spare everyone the time to repeat it here.

Gary, in planing hull, length is nearly meaningless at top speed. Beam is much more important. Of course, if the boat is to perform well at the low end, length comes into the equation. I'm not talking about the very high length/beam ratios of the needle boats that can make high speed without planing.

 

Tom this is to keep you on your toes. Why aren't there many/any true beamy boats that go 55 mph while narrow boats easily surpass this speed?( this is getting to be fun!)

 

Nomad,

Because a boat has to operate in water which is not always calm.

At top speed, racing (especially the inshore variety) boats run with only the aft bit of hull in the water. Sometimes they are only on the prop and cavitation plate plus an air cushion. This works out to an extremely small length/beam ratio. This is the most efficient, but is not suitable for smashing into waves and porpoising get to be a real problem, SO (that compromise thing again) the boat has to give up theoretical efficiency for reality. Therefore the offshore boats get longer, skinnier and deeper so they can get through the waves without tearing themselves apart.

I'm not making this stuff up, it's in the book.

Looking is not the same thing as seeing.

 

Any other votes? I think that we should give this 2 more days and then the size is FINAL. Sound good?

 

Ok 29'-32' it is!

 

Any bigger would be too large and any smaller wouldn't have same seaworthiness.

 

For me, the absolute limits are 24m length, 6.5m beam, 1.4m draught (the dimensions of the smallest lock on the waterways I like to crusie). Yes, that's big, and no, I don't have money. I consider that about the largest size that can be handled by two people (with thrusters of course!), but it's enough for a family and their guests to throw a decent Canadian-style party. A large, but simple, boat. More likely I'd end up with another 30-foot motorsailer....

 

A Canadian-style party? How's that any different from any other (instert name of Western/Industrialized Nation here)-party? 24m, that's quite large (over 60 feet in our outdated american system).

 

Try more like 78'9" and yes that is large, but not one which cannot be handled by two -

I had an 85' TSDY under command for a summer and that was WITHOUT a bow thruster -- took it up the St Clair River -- not fast but very comfortable --

 

I have a preference for large and simple over small and fancy. Simple is less likely to break than fancy, easier to fix when things do break. And as long as the boat can be handled by two, I'd sooner spend my money on space and structure than on Italian leather and bird's-eye jarrah.