Looks like it didn't get anywhere.

http://www.questarmarine.com/tech.htm

Maybe construction costs, or maybe it wasn't all it was touted to be.
Getting fuel efficiency from land vehicles involves engine efficiency,
weight, aeordynamics, and rolling resistance friction.
Those are the basics, and the rolling resistance is basically the
least of the problem, being handled by bearing and tire design.
With a boat you've got all that except the "rolling resistance" is
replaced by water friction and water displacement at speed.
This hull tries to address that.
I'm far from an engineer but its seems to me that boat designers
should be able to get closer to auto efficiency than they have.
But maybe not.
When you look at a planing boat you see there's a small pad of the
bottom that's actually in contact with the water. Might make you
think that it shouldn't take much power to move the boat on that
pad. Took some power to get it up on plane, but then less to keep it
there.
Must be the energy losses in the prop moving water. Just not as
efficient as rubber on the road. Water slip.
That's where Froggy should look for a breakthrough.
The tunnel hull seems to offer some promise. Pressurize the water
feeding the prop using a tunnel design. Or maybe reduce the pressure
and increase the velocity with the tunnel design.
Like I said, I ain't an engineer.
Maybe use some of that hi-tech coating material on it too.
Should be able to come up with one that repels water.
Antiwaterium?
How bout it, Froggy?

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
Looks like it didn't get anywhere.

http://www.questarmarine.com/tech.htm

Maybe construction costs, or maybe it wasn't all it was touted to be.
Getting fuel efficiency from land vehicles involves engine efficiency,
weight, aeordynamics, and rolling resistance friction.
Those are the basics, and the rolling resistance is basically the
least of the problem, being handled by bearing and tire design.
With a boat you've got all that except the "rolling resistance" is
replaced by water friction and water displacement at speed.
This hull tries to address that.
I'm far from an engineer but its seems to me that boat designers
should be able to get closer to auto efficiency than they have.
But maybe not.
When you look at a planing boat you see there's a small pad of the
bottom that's actually in contact with the water. Might make you
think that it shouldn't take much power to move the boat on that
pad. Took some power to get it up on plane, but then less to keep it
there.
Must be the energy losses in the prop moving water. Just not as
efficient as rubber on the road. Water slip.
That's where Froggy should look for a breakthrough.
The tunnel hull seems to offer some promise. Pressurize the water
feeding the prop using a tunnel design. Or maybe reduce the pressure
and increase the velocity with the tunnel design.
Like I said, I ain't an engineer.
Maybe use some of that hi-tech coating material on it too.
Should be able to come up with one that repels water.
Antiwaterium?
How bout it, Froggy?

--Vic

Innovative? I guess of you glued pieces of two different sized boats
together, it would be innovative.

In article ,
says...

Looks like it didn't get anywhere.

http://www.questarmarine.com/tech.htm

Maybe construction costs, or maybe it wasn't all it was touted to be.
Getting fuel efficiency from land vehicles involves engine efficiency,
weight, aeordynamics, and rolling resistance friction.
Those are the basics, and the rolling resistance is basically the
least of the problem, being handled by bearing and tire design.
With a boat you've got all that except the "rolling resistance" is
replaced by water friction and water displacement at speed.
This hull tries to address that.
I'm far from an engineer but its seems to me that boat designers
should be able to get closer to auto efficiency than they have.
But maybe not.
When you look at a planing boat you see there's a small pad of the
bottom that's actually in contact with the water. Might make you
think that it shouldn't take much power to move the boat on that
pad. Took some power to get it up on plane, but then less to keep it
there.
Must be the energy losses in the prop moving water. Just not as
efficient as rubber on the road. Water slip.
That's where Froggy should look for a breakthrough.
The tunnel hull seems to offer some promise. Pressurize the water
feeding the prop using a tunnel design. Or maybe reduce the pressure
and increase the velocity with the tunnel design.
Like I said, I ain't an engineer.
Maybe use some of that hi-tech coating material on it too.
Should be able to come up with one that repels water.
Antiwaterium?
How bout it, Froggy?

--Vic







I remember an Americas cup boat at one time that tried a dimpled design
like a golf ball. IIRC the idea was to introduce air bubbles across the
bottom. They suggested it was like the laps on a viking ship which
apparently kept air bubbles under the surface along the seams or
something like that.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:31:53 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:



I remember an Americas cup boat at one time that tried a dimpled design
like a golf ball. IIRC the idea was to introduce air bubbles across the
bottom. They suggested it was like the laps on a viking ship which
apparently kept air bubbles under the surface along the seams or
something like that.

Saw some discussion of that. And the engineers pooh-poohing it, since
a golf ball is flying though the air.
Also saw that Dennis Connor was wet-sanding the hulls of his racing
boats and when asked why, he said "Because everybody else is doing
it."
They actually have some claims for this boat, but it might be all PR.
Seems as fuel prices rise, they could get some traction if their
claims are true.
I imagine a big cost of sportsfisher operation is fuel, and cutting
that cost would be a boon to business.
But maybe tradition works against trying anything new.

--Vic

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:57:18 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:31:53 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:



I remember an Americas cup boat at one time that tried a dimpled design
like a golf ball. IIRC the idea was to introduce air bubbles across the
bottom. They suggested it was like the laps on a viking ship which
apparently kept air bubbles under the surface along the seams or
something like that.

Saw some discussion of that. And the engineers pooh-poohing it, since
a golf ball is flying though the air.
Also saw that Dennis Connor was wet-sanding the hulls of his racing
boats and when asked why, he said "Because everybody else is doing
it."
They actually have some claims for this boat, but it might be all PR.
Seems as fuel prices rise, they could get some traction if their
claims are true.
I imagine a big cost of sportsfisher operation is fuel, and cutting
that cost would be a boon to business.
But maybe tradition works against trying anything new.

--Vic

Fluids all act similarly when you are talking about flow across the
surface.
Mythbusters actually did show some improvement when they dimpled a car
body.

As far as the tunnels and air bubbles, I have a project over there that
includes such tunnels. Nothing new, I was looking at a Whaler when I
drew it...

On Nov 23, 10:17*am, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:57:18 -0600, Vic Smith





wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:31:53 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

I remember an Americas cup boat at one time that tried a dimpled design
like a golf ball. IIRC the idea was to introduce air bubbles across the
bottom. They suggested it was like the laps on a viking ship which
apparently kept air bubbles under the surface along the seams or
something like that.

Saw some discussion of that. *And the engineers pooh-poohing it, since
a golf ball is flying though the air.
Also saw that Dennis Connor was wet-sanding the hulls of his racing
boats and when asked why, he said "Because everybody else is doing
it."
They actually have some claims for this boat, but it might be all PR.
Seems as fuel prices rise, they could get some traction if their
claims are true.
I imagine a big cost of sportsfisher operation is fuel, and cutting
that cost would be a boon to business.
But maybe tradition works against trying anything new.

--Vic

Fluids all act similarly when you are talking about flow across the
surface.
Mythbusters actually did show some improvement when they dimpled a car
body.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hail damage?

On Nov 23, 12:18*pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:17*am, wrote:



On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:57:18 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:31:53 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

I remember an Americas cup boat at one time that tried a dimpled design
like a golf ball. IIRC the idea was to introduce air bubbles across the
bottom. They suggested it was like the laps on a viking ship which
apparently kept air bubbles under the surface along the seams or
something like that.

Saw some discussion of that. *And the engineers pooh-poohing it, since
a golf ball is flying though the air.
Also saw that Dennis Connor was wet-sanding the hulls of his racing
boats and when asked why, he said "Because everybody else is doing
it."
They actually have some claims for this boat, but it might be all PR.
Seems as fuel prices rise, they could get some traction if their
claims are true.
I imagine a big cost of sportsfisher operation is fuel, and cutting
that cost would be a boon to business.
But maybe tradition works against trying anything new.

--Vic

Fluids all act similarly when you are talking about flow across the
surface.
Mythbusters actually did show some improvement when they dimpled a car
body.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hail damage?

Vic:

Unfortunately, when it comes to hydrodynamics, anybody here is more
qualified than me.
From what little I understand about planing boat performance, weight
is the big issue for fuel economy. You are supporting the entire
weight of the boat on that tiny portion of the hull in contact with
the water meaning you gotta push it at a minimum speed to get it to
plane. Maybe it is like friction where the force due to friction is
proportional to weight.
At any rate, Renn Tolman says weight is the primary issue for fuel
economy so his boats are very lightweight. My 20' Tolman weighs about
800 lbs so is very economical on fuel (if you can call 5 mpg
economical) optimum speed is roughly 20 mph with 5 people aboard.
Even using it to take the kids kneeboarding in an afternoon it uses
little fuel.
Tolman also has a design for a "SeaBright" skiff that uses a diesel
that supposedly gets extreme fuel economy at speeds of about 18 mph.
If you do not mind going slow, check out the "Diesel Duck", a 38'
"troller cruiser" that supposedly uses 3/4 gal/hour of diesel at 8
kts. It also has sail assist if you want to use even less.
For me, I thought fuel economy would be a worry but so far with the
Tolman it never has been an issue. I have never used more than 7
gallons of fuel in a whole day. The larger Tolman's (such as the
Jumbo at 23') using 4 cycle motors are supposed to get over 6 mpg with
a 125 hp 4 cycle.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:54:12 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:



Unfortunately, when it comes to hydrodynamics, anybody here is more
qualified than me.
From what little I understand about planing boat performance, weight
is the big issue for fuel economy. You are supporting the entire
weight of the boat on that tiny portion of the hull in contact with
the water meaning you gotta push it at a minimum speed to get it to
plane. Maybe it is like friction where the force due to friction is
proportional to weight.

Think it's more due to prop inefficiency. Slippage increasing at
higher speeds. With a car once you get enough torque to lock up
the converter, efficiency increases. Of course your wheels aren't
slipping. Water and concrete are different, but analogies can be
useful.
So how do you make the prop more efficiently push water?
Beats me, but maybe how you feed water to the prop at the front end
could help, which is one reason I find the tunnel hulls interesting,
even aside from what else they do in floating the boat.
Sometimes I wish I was an engineer. Not often though.

At any rate, Renn Tolman says weight is the primary issue for fuel
economy so his boats are very lightweight. My 20' Tolman weighs about
800 lbs so is very economical on fuel (if you can call 5 mpg
economical) optimum speed is roughly 20 mph with 5 people aboard.
Even using it to take the kids kneeboarding in an afternoon it uses
little fuel.
Tolman also has a design for a "SeaBright" skiff that uses a diesel
that supposedly gets extreme fuel economy at speeds of about 18 mph.

Think the "Rescue Minor" in this link is the first time I became aware
of the tunnel hulls.
http://www.fishyfish.com/renn_tolman/index.html
Neat. How much of the economy comes from the light weight and use of
a diesel I don't know.

If you do not mind going slow, check out the "Diesel Duck", a 38'
"troller cruiser" that supposedly uses 3/4 gal/hour of diesel at 8
kts. It also has sail assist if you want to use even less.
For me, I thought fuel economy would be a worry but so far with the
Tolman it never has been an issue. I have never used more than 7
gallons of fuel in a whole day. The larger Tolman's (such as the
Jumbo at 23') using 4 cycle motors are supposed to get over 6 mpg with
a 125 hp 4 cycle.

From what I've seen you can get pretty good economy from displacement
hulls if you stay away from hull speed and have
the propulsion gear optimized.
Even planing hulls don't have to be planed.
There's a guy with a 24' Carolina Skiff DLX who fishes mostly creeks
and such, but sometimes goes into the Chesapeake Bay and the
Virginia Eastern Shore.
His engine is a tiller 9.9 4-stroke. Says his typical mileage is 16.5
mpg. Probably goes about 5-6 knots. He didn't say.
All of this will matter more when/if fuel gets to 10 bucks a gallon.

--Vic

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:59:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

The tunnel hull seems to offer some promise. Pressurize the water
feeding the prop using a tunnel design. Or maybe reduce the pressure
and increase the velocity with the tunnel design.

This isn't as innovative as you might think - a lot of small boat
manufacturers have been building this type of hull design for quite a
while now. There's a manufacturer called Shoalwater (don't know if
they are in business stiil or not) that built bay boats and other
shallow water flats boats with this type of design.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:33:12 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:59:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

The tunnel hull seems to offer some promise. Pressurize the water
feeding the prop using a tunnel design. Or maybe reduce the pressure
and increase the velocity with the tunnel design.

This isn't as innovative as you might think - a lot of small boat
manufacturers have been building this type of hull design for quite a
while now. There's a manufacturer called Shoalwater (don't know if
they are in business stiil or not) that built bay boats and other
shallow water flats boats with this type of design.

Not much detail, but there was some talk about the complex angles of
the tunnels and the need for computer-controlled cutting of same.
Maybe all just PR talk. Since this stuff is already a few years old,
it looks like it went nowhere. Fascinating idea though.
Somebody might actually make it all work.

--Vic