To A New Paradigm With FPB

Wicked FPB – Following The Path


Wicked-FPB-15-5.jpg


Throughout history, the most successful seagoing vessels have shared common attributes. Take, for example, the greatest warriors and travelers of their time, the fiercesome Vikings. When they sallied forth from their northland fjords, they employed high speed, extremely maneuverable, shallow draft designs to help them expand and conquer their world.

 

Wicked-FPB-16-1.jpg

While the FPB series are different than the current market-driven norm, they are simply following a millennia long tradition of proven seagoing parameters.

From the Vikings to Donald McKay’s extreme clippers to modern warships, the same rules of hydrostatics apply. We may have refined things a touch, but we remain true to this seagoing heritage. The Wicked FPB is another step along a thousand year old evolution.

For more information on the FPB Series, e-mail ToddR@SetSail.com

Posted by Steve Dashew  (January 31, 2012)




14 Responses to “Wicked FPB – Following The Path”

  1. Alain M Says:
    I just see something, hehe!!! Your flybridge top looks like he have 3 function, maybe 4 if I guess right, but lets the other sailors talk first, see what comes out…

    [Reply]


  2. Henry Rech Says:
    Steve, The notion of long lived technically correct principles of naval architecture going back to the vikings is all very interesting. However, it appears the vikings had all the fun. Socially correct principles of behaviour these days preclude beaching on the shore of a strange land, taking booty and ravaging the local native women. If only you could find a means by which these ancient practices could be married again to naval architecture, the atavistic allure of sailing to distant lands might be revived. Your new FBP could then be said to be truly “wicked”. Cheers, Henry.

    [Reply]

    Greg Reply:

    The Vikings also burnt their ships at the destination to provide some incentive to win the on land battles. Reintroducing this practice would give the boat building industry a much needed boost. Cheers Greg

    [Reply]

    Matt L Reply:

    LOL … (promoted)

    [Reply]


  3. David Says:
    It seems that as the bow (and stern) become more fine you are getting your reserve bouncy from more flare.

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Reserve buoyancy is something you need if the waterline buoyancy is lacking. If you have sufficient waterline, coupled with moderate displacement, and the curve distribution of volume (curve of area) then the excess required is minimal.

    [Reply]


  4. Scott Evangelista Says:
    Steve, Always a pleasure to see what you are up to. Did I miss the length of the this wicked sea witch? The super structure “feels heavier to my eye” if that makes any sense. Any side by sides coming our way? Also, when following another blogger who built a highly technical boat…when he gets far from experienced service techs all hell breaks loose…how so with the solar additions as integral and planned for power? The notions is cool…but what is the experience with life, serviceability etc? Thanks for the updates

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Hi Scott: The solars are the best money can by, and the regulators (probably six of them) likewise. Much more reliable than the generator they replace. As to the other questions, details shortly.

    [Reply]


  5. Alain M Says:
    Hi Steve, It looks to me as a FPB 64 with bodybuilded great room… But the 6 port on each side of the hull tells me it should be the 115 with it’s twin screw ;-) , with raised great room, mean higher view point, opportunity to scrap the pilot house (who was nice, but do we really need it???), save weight in the high to balance the solar panel weight with it’s light flybridge with 360 view (even I think your design can maybe have one smaller pilot house on commercial version if needed from customer ;-) )… Regards Alain

    [Reply]


  6. Daryl Lippincott Says:
    “Much more reliable than the generator they replace.” Sounds like no diesel generator. Makes sense to me. If the solar panels can almost keep up with the electrical loads you will want to run each main engine for a while every 10 days or so anyway. Waiting breathlessly, Daryl

    [Reply]


  7. Paolo Says:
    Great looking boat, probably the one I would choose. In it’s unpainted aluminum and minimal looks, it might even be relatively cheap to make. Who knows

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    Agree with the first, and expect the last, relatively speaking, to also be the case.

    [Reply]


  8. Billy McK Says:
    Steve, I had my heart set on, lotto win permitting, the FPB64. Now you have forced me reconsider; as the design evolves it seems everything is getting longer/more expensive/more desirable. Would you ever consider updating the 64 to share some if not all of the great innovations you are considering for the 97? I love her and your sensible engineering led approach to design. So refreshing. Billy McK

    [Reply]

    Steve Dashew Reply:

    The 97 is a design unto itself and very little of applies to our other FPBs.

    [Reply]



Comments or Questions?