Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1967Re: [AtkinBoats] Testing Billy Atkin's "Shoals Runner"

Expand Messages
  • Kenneth Grome
    May 30, 2008
      Hi John,

      > Let's see... Suppose you were testing the efficiency of
      > pickup trucks, the "Atkin" four-wheel drive pickup
      > against some more "conventional" two-wheel drive trucks.

      Okay, let's use this example because it's an easy one that
      should help you to understand the situation a little

      > I question the value of the test because the design of
      > four-wheel drive trucks sacrifices some efficiency for
      > the traction benefits of four powered wheels.

      It really doesn't matter whether you personally question the
      validity of the tests or not, or if you 'believe' that some
      efficiency is sacrificed in the 4WD truck, because you do
      not actually know which truck is more efficient, do you?
      All you're doing is theorizing and relying on your own
      personal assumptions, or perhaps the assumptions of others.
      You have no facts -- plain and simple -- and that's what
      the tests are for.

      > If the people targeted by the test aren't interested in
      > four-wheel drive why have a four-wheel drive truck
      > as the centerpiece of the test?


      Word has gotten around that the 4WD is extremely fuel
      efficient for some unknown reason -- much more fuel
      efficient than common sense might suggest -- and the people
      interested in the tests want to know for a fact whether or
      not this reputation for fuel efficiency is deserved, or if
      it's just a bunch of talk.

      The most fuel efficient truck just happens to have 4WD as
      one of its design features. This is incidental to the
      efficiency question at hand, and not at all important here.
      They couldn't care less about the 4WD feature, what they
      care about is fuel efficiency -- and this particular 4WD
      reportedly has better fuel efficiency ... although no hard
      evidence ihas ever been presented to prove it.

      If an Asian multicab pickup were reported to be more fuel
      efficient than the 4WD, they would have chosen a multicab
      as the centerpiece of these tests. But it just so happens
      that the 4WD pickup is the one they heard all the stories
      and theories about, so that's the truck they want as their
      centerpiece in comparison tests ... :)

      This is a simple concept to me. I hope I've been able to
      explain it more clearly now, and I'm really not sure why
      you guys don't get it. All I can think of is that you're
      stuck on the original design concept of shoal draft as "the
      most important feature of the boat" and you're simply not
      willing to listen to or accept anyone else's opinion that
      something else might be more important to them.

      > Why would someone who's not interested in shallow draft
      > be interested in how a shallow draft boat's efficiency
      > fares against boats whose designs weren't compromised
      > to get shallow draft?

      Because the fuel efficiency of the shallow draft boat is
      what attracts and intrigues them, not the shoal draft.

      But is the design "compromised" to get shallow draft? This
      soulds like it is reduced in quality or performance. At
      boatdesign.net they called it 'optimized' not 'compromised'
      so I guess there are different ways to characterize the
      design ... :)

      It seems you're making a case that the tunnel-stern boats
      are somehow less fuel efficient than others simply because
      they are designed with shoal draft in mind. But from my
      perspective, I think it still remains to be proven which of
      these hull types is more or less efficient.

      Maybe Atkin found a way to get shoal draft *AND* better fuel
      efficiency all in the same design ... ?

      > Your test won't produce any useful results unless it
      > compares apples to apples ...

      The results may not be useful to you, but I have proposed a
      perfectly valid testing regime which will absolutely
      produce some facts for a change. My tests won't answer the
      questions you personally feel are important, but that
      doesn't make the answers useless to others or they wouldn't
      be sponsoring this program.

      > It would be real
      > interesting to see how an Atkin non-tunnel V-bottom
      > Seabright skiff stacks up against other "conventional"
      > boats for efficiency. That's the test you should do.

      Yes it would be interesting ... but the sponsors are willing
      to pay for tests that answer a different question, so I
      think these are the tests I "should" be doing. Don't get
      me wrong, I have no objection to running the tests you
      think I should do, just not right now. These other tests
      come first.

      > Shoals Runner will have one arm tied behind it's back
      > competing against "conventional" motorboats, but I'll bet
      > it'll still be more efficient than some. But so what?

      Some people hope to build the most fuel efficient boats they
      can build. Maybe a test like this will clarify which hull
      is the most fuel efficient. You know, not assuming
      anything, instead just doing some tests to get the facts.


      > If shoal draft doesn't matter you're gonna build one of
      > the types of boats that will be more efficient than Shoals
      > Runner, maybe an Atkin V-bottom Seabright skiff sans
      > tunnel!

      It seems you're already committed to the belief that the
      non-tunnel-stern boats are more efficient, so I suspect
      that nothing short of proof to the contrary will convince
      you otherwise.

      I honestly wonder what's going to happen if I run my tests
      and prove that the tunnel-stern boat is MORE fuel efficient
      than the boat with a simpler underwater shape?

      Ken Grome
      Bagacay Boatworks

      > <sigh>
      > Your test won't produce any useful results unless it
      > compares apples to apples, or oranges to oranges -- a
      > selection of inboard motorboats of the same size, weight
      > and power with 6" draft, _or_ a selection of similar
      > motorboats with at least "normal" draft. It would be real
      > interesting to see how an Atkin non-tunnel V-bottom
      > Seabright skiff stacks up against other "conventional"
      > boats for efficiency. That's the test you should do. It'd
      > also be mildly interesting to see how an Atkin
      > tunnel-stern V-bottom Seabright skiff does against other
      > inboard boats with 6" draft, but I don't think it'd be
      > much of a contest -- only jet drives and obviously less
      > efficent tunnel designs could compete...

      > On Thu, 29 May 2008 03:26:49 -0700, Kenneth G wrote:
      > > You cannot force people to accept "shallow draft" as an
      > > important testing issue. It may be important to you
      > > personally, but I'm planning these tests for people who
      > > couldn't care less about the boat's shallow draft.
      > >
      > > Some of us simply want to know -- for a fact -- whether
      > > the Atkin boats are more or less fuel efficient than
      > > the others. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be
      > > "assuming" the Atkin boats are less fuel efficient than
      > > non-shoal draft boats, is this correct?
      > > ...
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic