If you are a regular visitor to SetSail.com, you know we like fine rear ends. Flat buttock lines in particular arouse our instincts. With most yacht designs, there is a conflict here between comfort and performance (and this varies with different speeds, or more correctly speed-length ratios). Typically, you pick a speed regime and sea state and live with the results.
But if you stretch the waterline, keeping other design aspects constant, good things begin to happen.
For one, you get finer sections forward which allow the hull to penetrate rather than pitching up.
Of course this is just a rendering, but we expect this wicked new FPB to have an even softer ride uphill than the FPB 64s, while pitching less than Wind Horse.
What happens forward has to be balanced with what happens aft. Have a full bow and a fat rear has to follow. Fine forward means those coveted sweet buttock lines are possible.
And there is a bonus. Hull shapes like this have a wide envelop of speeds in which to perform efficiently. From speed-length ratios of 1.05 to 1.2 there is little penalty to be paid for getting there quickly. Crank up to 1.25 and the mileage drops, but not precipitously. The FPB 64s and the 83 regularly cross oceans at SLRs between 1.175 nd 1,22. We expect the new FPB to be more efficient yet.
Astute observers will note there is a difference between the stern sections of the FPB 64, 83, and the new FPB. Each is optimized for a different design environment. There is no magic design formula. Each hull is a special case.
For more information on the FPB Series, e-mail Sue Grant: Sue.Grant@Berthon.Co.UK.
Posted by Steve Dashew (January 30, 2012)
January 31st, 2012 at 5:47 am
Hi Steve,
From the few I see, Balanced, Sharp, Nice and Clean…
I like it.
With the few other info we had before, I am just more and more exited about see the whole concept…
A new break through???
Regards
Alain
January 31st, 2012 at 5:50 am
Steve,
You said: there is no “magical formula”, I would add: just “logic thinking”…
Regards
Alain
January 31st, 2012 at 7:03 am
Interestinger and interestinger.
By the bye, the forced air ventilation is very interesting and looks great. Did you consider putting the forward looking vents above the windows? It would mean no water entry problems in almost all cases of a buried bow. I know the vents as placed can be shut off but it would be nice to not have to forgo ventilation.
January 31st, 2012 at 9:41 am
Forward (eye brow) vents are dedicated to the solar panel cooling.
January 31st, 2012 at 8:37 am
Hi Steve,
Looks like the Wicked has a wider aft section, with the great-room more afward and a shorter and wider aft deck. The bow looks a bit(feet) longer and narrower. I suppose a longer waterline and a slim and longer bow to compensate a wider aft section. With the result: more hulspeed, with even a positive effect on pitching.
Johan
January 31st, 2012 at 9:42 am
Look again – the views can be deceiving. We would never put a wider stern with a finer bow.
January 31st, 2012 at 11:44 am
So, when do we find out the specs? I am also curious to find out about the basement. Since you have raised the house to fit the dorade box/ forced air system, does the basement height double from the 3 ft that windhorse has?
On the Solar Panels, there is a company here in the silicon valley that makes monocrystalline flexible panels that are about 20% of the weight of the traditional glass topped panels. I will send the link when I find it again. Going that route could save 600+ lbs from the house roof and above. They are very high efficiency panels btw.
–raj
January 31st, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Hi Steve,
I have to say the new design looks awsome. One thing that caught my eye was now that the fly bridge roof is hard and the masts are spread further apart what will happen to the forestay/SSB antenna/booms. Also with the windows now canted out at the top and the salon roof being wider,did you have to raise the height of the salon roof to avoid the brow of the roof being a hazard (should read inevitable place to bang ones head at 2 AM when moving forward to unjam chain jypsy in a 40 kt squall)
tony.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Masts are self supporting. SSB long wire available if desired. Headroom issues carefully vetted. Details soon.
January 31st, 2012 at 12:29 pm
I notice the absence of a keel also!
January 31st, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Aft topsides have been well hidden so far….something new happening there?
January 31st, 2012 at 10:24 pm
A few more days…
January 31st, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Any comments on the half-heart shape cutout of the skeg?
January 31st, 2012 at 11:57 pm
I believe that is just a shadow from the prop…
February 1st, 2012 at 12:27 am
Hey LBD:
That heart shape is one of the keys to our propulsion system.However, its exact nature I cannot divulge without a shadow of doubt.
January 31st, 2012 at 8:37 pm
From the videos it is clear your active stabilizers do an amazing job of eliminating roll. Do they also help with pitch or is that taken care of just by the hull shape?
January 31st, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Hi Vincente:
Roll only with the active stabilizers. Pitch is handled with the hull shape.
February 1st, 2012 at 8:56 am
Speaking of stabilizers, have you considered or evaluated gyro stabilization?
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Hi Bob:
Sevearal detailed replies on this subject, most recent within the past week.
February 1st, 2012 at 7:07 pm
The sharp outside angles of the ‘swim’ platform would look better if they could be rounded somewhat and would be more resistant to damage in case of contact with a hard surface, such as a dock…
The rudders are apparently set outside of the shafts centreline, allowing easy removal of the shaft and more efficient rudder action…
Prop clearance between blade tip and extended shoe – compared to the 64 footer – looks tight…
February 1st, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Hi Frank:
Prop skeg details and tip clearance are identical in scale to the 64. Shaft to buttock angle a little flatter. Swim platform edge will, of course, be softened.
February 2nd, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Have you looked into using servo motors for the stabilizers? It would be nice to simplify a little more and eliminate the hyd. system.
Regards,
Daryl
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:40 pm
No enough torque/speed.
February 3rd, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Have you looked at Stabilis Electra. Their electrical stabilizer is being installed by many Italian yards for yacts and superyachts
Raj
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Thanks for the heads up. We’ll check them out.
February 3rd, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I’m sure I saw the question asked some time ago, but I don’t recall seeing an answer: Did you consider active or passive gyros instead of active fins? What caused you to go with fins?
thank you,
Brian
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Look back over t he past two weeks or use the search fu nction.