The perils of edgy design offshore

You're right, MJ, I'm offcourse. But I have no religion.
Also the "not" designed example above is not serious. It would be perhaps acceptable if the flared wings extended into a swelling somewhat like a 49'er, perhaps then could be viewed as a multihull.

 

I think I'd stick to multihulls.

 

Well, yes and no, I quite enjoyed my venture into the 5.5 skimmer.

 

Well Gary took a stab at his "design".

Things are settling down a little - less poison in the pen.

MJ is it your turn or are you just going to say, look at all the complaints? That's what I would fix?

Let me assure you this was not to stir up the hate and discontent. I am by preference a multihull fan. So I was really looking for information on a viable, fairly reasonable, monohull for high performance.

Marc

 

===================
This is being worked on now:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/foiling-keelboat-30-a-38395.html

 

It is not for me to visualise - or sit in a stasis tank to meditate too to "get the picture". It is for you to demonstrate by simple analysis what your definition of "some buoyancy" is and how this relates to other boats with buoyancy. Is this how you show your clients how you have taken their SOR...???

And also please provide the SOR so we can see how well your 'design' meets to criteria. Otherwise what is your MO?

It appears, so far, your method of design is.....hey lets do a sketch and woahhhh, it looks cool, it looks edgy....this is excellent. Don't ask for how or why, just trust me.

Since so far, you have not provided one shred of evidence to support your claims of superiority of edgy designs and rationalising them for anyone to follow to see "why" other than what you visualise when you think of something. As noted before, this is not a site about religion, this is an engineering/design site. So, please, less faith based, please provide the evidence for your claims that anyone with significantly less knowledge than you can see the how's and the why's.

In some places you'd get arrested for such "visualisation", the assumption being it is externally stimulated!

 

Gary took a stab at a very general concept with no detail, I'll leave it there there's nothing to comment on.

As for what would you fix about Wingnuts? Yes look at what's been posted about what's wrong with it.

How could we make it safer? Well there are many options. But the dynamic system that comprises a boat in a seaway is complex.

For example if you really want wings (or maybe preferably just wider decks) and some inherent level of safety ( say self righting from 125 degrees in a seaway) then you need more energy under the GZ curve to LPS to compensate. You could also lose the extreme flare so that heeled stability can act to reduce the deck edge digging in in a beam sea. You could also beneficially lower the ballast.

But you could also build a slender high RM long hull, it depends on the weather the sea state and how much you rating rules cripple the design. You could also build two slender hulls and join them together .

Options like a float on the mast would not have helped IMO since the violent inversion that produced the head trauma to the deceased was IMO due to the wave dynamics I explained before. In smooth water with a wind only knockdown the inversion would be more sedate and a float would help.

But these boats are not winners, they are not new ideas and they were condemned as unsafe from their inception close to 30 years ago and that was universal not just a NA's stilted view It's just a case of the wrong boat on the coarse.

 

The artist obviously sees things differently to the engineer, and I come from an arty farty background, and visualizing is not some weird meditation thing, but simply natural observation, look and work from there, using eye/brain/experience to figure things out. That other dangerous word is in there too, aesthetic. So it is also quite simple to see, for an artist, say, in this case, what a boat looks like in your mind; you don't write down a number of figures, put dots on paper, then join them together. It's kinda looser than that - and this again, supposedly, is anathema to the rigid and rigorous engineer. But that is how many boats throughout history have been created - that latter word, created, is also probably a dirty word for you. I'm taking the piss, not serious.
So there is a huge difference ... and returning to the OHR design, looking at the cross section of the hull, it is clear that there is flair in the topsides which then changes to flat wings; it is not as most critics seem to think, a conventional slab sided hull with abrupt rack change of direction. So there is extra buoyancy there. Does that answer your question?
The "superiority," your word, not mine, of an edgy design, and all fast boats have some edginess in them, is simply that they are more extreme than conventional designs and therefore beat them in races. You will say, if they finish - but historically, they usually do and have done, or if not the next generation including improvements, does.
By the way, I had a cousin in Nelson, Jack Guard, a descendant of the very earliest immigrant NZ family who settled in the Marlborough Sounds, long before colonisation, who did not even draw his designs on paper, it was all in his head and he built numbers of large fishing boats in the mid 2oth Century, 50 footers and such, by just starting and building them. And they were beautiful and were very successful. So he was an artist, although he never considered himself to be so. I have some old photographs somewhere that I'll post later, maybe.
Yeah, I like your joke. This thread has probably had enough stimulation.

 

No, not one bit.

In your attempts to side track the issues YOU are claiming, at the same time as painting yourself as an “artist” (I thought you were a ‘designer’ of edgy designs), you have not provide one bit of evidence, not one.

If boat A goes around a course in 1 minute and boat B goes around a course in 2mins, we can very obviously say boat A is faster. How do we know it is faster, we measure it. In this case, it is “time” that is the unit of measure.

Whatever we do, any claim, must be supported by evidence, in this case boat A is faster because we can show that it is 60 seconds, or one minute or twice as fast as boat B. We can show this by way of measurements, something that can be verified independently, so it is not a claim, but a fact. Anyone with a stop watch can verify the claim as fact, boat A is faster.

So, your measure of “edgy” design is not some independent method, not some comparison with another boat of equal stature etc. You claim, or rather opine is that:

So, this is your unit of measurement and your whole basis of “edgy” design criteria??....it is clear.

Thus, you have no basis other than your own opine. No different to a child in school sketching up a boat and saying to the teacher….look, I have ‘designed’ an edgy high speed racer…look at the shape, it is clear. This being clear in the childs mind and no where else.

Your claims, are just that …claims, without foundation and basis. You are just another person with a biased opine that refuses to listen to anyone that does not agree with their view of the world.

And there I was thinking you were a truly exceptional “edgy designer” with proof beyond a question of doubt or faith, that we were all wrong, we know nothing and must hail you are the new messiah!

 

Ad Hoc, have to admit you show amazing "creativity" when analysing me ... but think you're offcourse, just IMO. It appears you have access to the O.H. Rogers plans, I don't, have only looked at photographs; why don't you measure the difference between a slab sided hull version and figure out the measurement and volume difference between the two. Then you can have two sets of figures to juggle between and that will make you feel satisfied. I'm hardly interested, I can SEE that the OHR boat has considerably more.

 

You really don't get it do you?

YOU are making such claims, YOU and no one else. In order for YOU to support YOUR claims, YOU must provide the evidence to persuade us YOU are right and we are wrong.

As yet, all you have provided is endless verbose and woolly words...so much for the edgy designer. Clearly I am mistaken, you are just another person with an opinion, but nowt else.

We all have opinions, we all think our opinion is right. But to make a bold claim and subvert it as fact where there is none...is plan old cheating and lying to further ones agenda to others.

May i suggest when you start a post to preposition it with "this is my opinion and should not be taken as fact nor seriously"...then you would not have to justify your rantings to others, whose views differ from your own.

Some people love celerey, i hate it. So what??

 

You know what... I don't like cellery either ...

Gary...I guess you can also SEE that the world appears to be flat.... that doesn't make it so....
In 25 pages of posts, you have finally written something with which I think we could all agree:

Historically, this is indeed how boats of all shapes and sizes have evolved. Wingnuts is a fabulous example of something that was tried... and didn't work. That's why we aren't all sailing Wingnuts variants.....

 

Whatever you say, Ad Hoc. I'd take it easy though, mate, do some gardening, or go fishing, maybe sailing, you sound like you heading for some type of health problem.

 

Hmmmm, why does the MARY ROSE come to mind as a ship designed to Gary's standards?

PDW

 

So, thank you for the confirmation that you are unable to support your very strong opinions with any evidence or facts.

It is clear to everyone reading your replies that you have strong views, but beyond that there is nothing other than an opinion, which you consistently attempt to subvert as a fact, according to your opinions.

See, that wasn't difficult was it....