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

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

Expand Messages
  • Kenneth Grome
    Hi LOn, Thanks for your thoughts! I agree that it may be desirable in some circumstances to compare two hulls with similar shallow draft characteristics. On
    Message 1 of 18 , May 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi LOn,

      Thanks for your thoughts!

      I agree that it may be desirable in some circumstances to
      compare two hulls with similar shallow draft
      characteristics.

      On the other hand, if shallow draft is not an issue, and
      when the goal is only to determine the relative efficiency
      of the two hulls, it certainly makes sense to compare them
      directly.

      That's all I'm planning to do here ... :)

      Sincerely,
      Ken Grome
      Bagacay Boatworks
      www.bagacayboatworks.com






      > It must be remembered the tunnel hull boats are
      > shallow draft boats, so they would have to be compared
      > to another equal shallow draft boat.
      >
      > By Atkin's calculation a non tunnel hull Seabright
      > Skiff like Happy Clam performs better than a tunnel
      > hull Seabright Skiff
      > http://tinyurl.com/345atw
      >
      > But if the traditional boat runs aground then the
      > tunnel hull wins.
      > Lon Wells
      >
      > --- Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
      > > Greetings,
      > >
      > > There are some very intelligent and experienced guys
      > > over at
      > > the boatdesign.net forum ...
      > >
      > > We've been discussing a proposal I made to test and
      > > compare
      > > Shoals Runner against a more common hull with
      > > similar
      > > dimensions -- specifically to see which is more
      > > efficient
      > > at 15 knots using the same inboard propulsion
      > > systems. If
      > > this testing gets off the ground and into the water
      > > the
      > > results may be interesting to some of you.
      > >
      > > I created a new Yahoo group to discuss and report on
      > > this
      > > testing program. I made the message archives
      > > visible to
      > > everyone so you do NOT have to join if you simply
      > > want to
      > > go there and see what we are discussing ... but if
      > > you want
      > > to post a message you have to join the group:
      > >
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ShoalsRunnerTesting/
      > >
      > > Sincerely,
      > > Ken Grome
      > > Bagacay Boatworks
      > > www.bagacayboatworks.com
    • sals_dad
      ... Well, that depends. It a traditional outbard runs aground, you pull up the engine, get out an oar, and push a bit. If an Atkin Tunnel Stern runs
      Message 2 of 18 , May 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > But if the traditional boat runs aground then the
        > tunnel hull wins.

        Well, that depends. It a "traditional" outbard runs aground, you pull
        up the engine, get out an oar, and push a bit. If an Atkin Tunnel
        Stern runs aground, you crack open a beer, put on your Ipod and
        bugspray, and wait for the tide to come in.

        ( ask me how I know... ;-)

        Sal's Dad
      • John Kohnen
        But the reason for the tunnel stern is shallow draft. If shallow draft is not an issue then you should compare a non-tunnel Atkin V-bottom Seabright skiff
        Message 3 of 18 , May 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          But the reason for the tunnel stern is shallow draft. If shallow draft is
          not an issue then you should compare a non-tunnel Atkin V-bottom
          Seabright skiff with more conventional hull forms. The Atkin tunnel-stern
          Seabright skiff will be at a disadvantage if it's competing against hulls
          not designed for similar shallow draft. What'd be the point? Apples and
          oranges... <shrug>

          On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:20:47 -0700, Kenneth G wrote:

          > ...
          > I agree that it may be desirable in some circumstances to
          > compare two hulls with similar shallow draft
          > characteristics.
          >
          > On the other hand, if shallow draft is not an issue, and
          > when the goal is only to determine the relative efficiency
          > of the two hulls, it certainly makes sense to compare them
          > directly.
          > ...

          --
          John <jkohnen@...>
          I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.
          <Booker T. Washington>
        • Kenneth Grome
          John, 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
          Message 4 of 18 , May 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            John,

            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?

            If you have some test result to prove this I would be glad
            to see them. Otherwise, I can run my own test and obtain
            my own results. Then instead of making assumptions we will
            have some facts for a change ...

            And facts are the whole point of my proposed tests.

            Sincerely,
            Ken Grome
            Bagacay Boatworks
            www.bagacayboatworks.com






            > But the reason for the tunnel stern is shallow draft. If
            > shallow draft is not an issue then you should compare a
            > non-tunnel Atkin V-bottom Seabright skiff with more
            > conventional hull forms. The Atkin tunnel-stern Seabright
            > skiff will be at a disadvantage if it's competing against
            > hulls not designed for similar shallow draft. What'd be
            > the point? Apples and oranges... <shrug>
            >
            > On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:20:47 -0700, Kenneth G wrote:
            > > ...
            > > I agree that it may be desirable in some circumstances
            > > to compare two hulls with similar shallow draft
            > > characteristics.
            > >
            > > On the other hand, if shallow draft is not an issue,
            > > and when the goal is only to determine the relative
            > > efficiency of the two hulls, it certainly makes sense
            > > to compare them directly.
            > > ...
          • lon wells
            The Atkin Seabright Skiff Tunnel hulls were designed for inboard use in shallow waters, Atkin also designed Seabright Skiffs that were not tunnel hull that did
            Message 5 of 18 , May 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              The Atkin Seabright Skiff Tunnel hulls were designed
              for inboard use in shallow waters, Atkin also designed
              Seabright Skiffs that were not tunnel hull that did
              not sacrifice performance for shallow draft, below are
              two seabright skiffs about the same width and beam one
              tunnel hull (shallow draft and the other slightly
              deeper draft (5-1/2") but it requires less than half
              the horse power to achieve greater speed.

              Heron Seabright Tunnel hull
              LOA 17 WL 16'-7" beam 5'-5" draft 6" 25hp 17MPH
              http://tinyurl.com/5rzo2o
              http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Utilities/Heron.html

              Happy Clam Seabright Hull
              LOA 17 WL 16 beam 5'6" draft 11-1/2 10HP speed 20mph
              http://tinyurl.com/345atw

              So there it is
              Lon


              --- John Kohnen <jkohnen@...> wrote:

              > But the reason for the tunnel stern is shallow
              > draft. If shallow draft is
              > not an issue then you should compare a non-tunnel
              > Atkin V-bottom
              > Seabright skiff with more conventional hull forms.
              > The Atkin tunnel-stern
              > Seabright skiff will be at a disadvantage if it's
              > competing against hulls
              > not designed for similar shallow draft. What'd be
              > the point? Apples and
              > oranges... <shrug>
              >
              > On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:20:47 -0700, Kenneth G wrote:
              >
              > > ...
              > > I agree that it may be desirable in some
              > circumstances to
              > > compare two hulls with similar shallow draft
              > > characteristics.
              > >
              > > On the other hand, if shallow draft is not an
              > issue, and
              > > when the goal is only to determine the relative
              > efficiency
              > > of the two hulls, it certainly makes sense to
              > compare them
              > > directly.
              > > ...
              >
              > --
              > John <jkohnen@...>
              > I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making
              > me hate him.
              > <Booker T. Washington>
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public
              > mopery. Please be polite.
              >
              > If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not
              > modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do
              > so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no
              > responsibility for the performance of the resulting
              > boat.
              >
              > The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
              > <http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Ronald Fossum
              Some of us simply want to know -- for a fact -- whether the Atkin boats are more or less fuel efficient than the others. Atkin designed power boats, sail
              Message 6 of 18 , May 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                "Some of us simply want to know -- for a fact -- whether the
                Atkin boats are more or less fuel efficient than the others."

                Atkin designed power boats, sail boats, and row boats. Gee, which one of
                these is the most fuel efficient. Well, some would say a sailboat - but what
                about when there's no wind. Some would say a row boat, but one has to take
                into account the food consumed by the "rower". Etc.

                Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid comparison is by comparing
                similar designs. Tunnel stern and Seabright skiff are NOT similar designs.
                Neither is a Seabright skiff and a Poulsbo. Nor is one of the Tolman boats!
                You're a boat builder. You know that. Stop being such a twit.

                Ron Fossum

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Kenneth Grome" <bagacayboatworks@...>
                To: <AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:26 AM
                Subject: Re: [AtkinBoats] Testing Billy Atkin's "Shoals Runner"


                > John,
                >
                > 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?
                >
                > If you have some test result to prove this I would be glad
                > to see them. Otherwise, I can run my own test and obtain
                > my own results. Then instead of making assumptions we will
                > have some facts for a change ...
                >
                > And facts are the whole point of my proposed tests.
                >
                > Sincerely,
                > Ken Grome
                > Bagacay Boatworks
                > www.bagacayboatworks.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >> But the reason for the tunnel stern is shallow draft. If
                >> shallow draft is not an issue then you should compare a
                >> non-tunnel Atkin V-bottom Seabright skiff with more
                >> conventional hull forms. The Atkin tunnel-stern Seabright
                >> skiff will be at a disadvantage if it's competing against
                >> hulls not designed for similar shallow draft. What'd be
                >> the point? Apples and oranges... <shrug>
                >>
                >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:20:47 -0700, Kenneth G wrote:
                >> > ...
                >> > I agree that it may be desirable in some circumstances
                >> > to compare two hulls with similar shallow draft
                >> > characteristics.
                >> >
                >> > On the other hand, if shallow draft is not an issue,
                >> > and when the goal is only to determine the relative
                >> > efficiency of the two hulls, it certainly makes sense
                >> > to compare them directly.
                >> > ...
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be
                > polite.
                >
                > If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If
                > you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will
                > take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.
                >
                > The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
                > <http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • Ron Butterfield
                On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Kenneth Grome ... Ken, congratulations on your efforts to insert some facts into the discussion.
                Message 7 of 18 , May 29, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...>
                  wrote:

                  >
                  > We've been discussing a proposal I made to test and compare
                  > Shoals Runner against a more common hull with similar
                  > dimensions -- specifically to see which is more efficient
                  > at 15 knots using the same inboard propulsion systems.


                  Ken, congratulations on your efforts to insert some facts into the
                  discussion.

                  I have noticed quite a few individuals being twits and making negative
                  comments regarding your proposed quest, but these same individuals are
                  (mostly) quite stingy with any facts backing up their various claims.

                  To all: The renewed popularity of Rescue Minor and it's efficiency
                  statements have raised the question regarding it's hull design and
                  efficiency. Ken has proposed a test to put facts on the table regarding
                  this, and is putting his money (and time and effort) where his mouth is. If
                  you want to make negative comments about his test, what are you doing to
                  replace it?

                  Boating is often an emotional endeavor, and what you as an individual "like"
                  can be quite important. Many would-be boaters, however, are limited in
                  funds; it takes real money to buy wood, steel, gas, and sailcloth, and it
                  would be nice to have a good idea what you are getting before you pay the
                  price.


                  --
                  Regards,
                  RonB


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ronald Fossum
                  Is it so hard to see that this is like saying my apples are better than your oranges ? Ron ... From: Ron Butterfield To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 29, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Is it so hard to see that this is like saying "my apples are better than your oranges"?

                    Ron

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Ron Butterfield
                    To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:29 PM
                    Subject: Re: [AtkinBoats] Testing Billy Atkin's "Shoals Runner"


                    On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...>
                    wrote:

                    >
                    > We've been discussing a proposal I made to test and compare
                    > Shoals Runner against a more common hull with similar
                    > dimensions -- specifically to see which is more efficient
                    > at 15 knots using the same inboard propulsion systems.

                    Ken, congratulations on your efforts to insert some facts into the
                    discussion.

                    I have noticed quite a few individuals being twits and making negative
                    comments regarding your proposed quest, but these same individuals are
                    (mostly) quite stingy with any facts backing up their various claims.

                    To all: The renewed popularity of Rescue Minor and it's efficiency
                    statements have raised the question regarding it's hull design and
                    efficiency. Ken has proposed a test to put facts on the table regarding
                    this, and is putting his money (and time and effort) where his mouth is. If
                    you want to make negative comments about his test, what are you doing to
                    replace it?

                    Boating is often an emotional endeavor, and what you as an individual "like"
                    can be quite important. Many would-be boaters, however, are limited in
                    funds; it takes real money to buy wood, steel, gas, and sailcloth, and it
                    would be nice to have a good idea what you are getting before you pay the
                    price.

                    --
                    Regards,
                    RonB

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • John Kohnen
                    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
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 29, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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. 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. Would you reply, "You cannot force people
                      to accept "four-wheel drive" 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 four-wheel
                      drive."? 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? 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? <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...

                      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? 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!

                      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?
                      > ...

                      --
                      John <jkohnen@...>
                      As for myself, the wonderful sea charmed me from the first.
                      <Joshua Slocum>
                    • Kenneth Grome
                      Hi Ron, ... For the sake of argument let s say I agree with this position. The next question is: Who gets to determine which design feature makes the two
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 29, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Ron,

                        > Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid
                        > comparison is by comparing similar designs.

                        For the sake of argument let's say I agree with this
                        position. The next question is:

                        Who gets to determine which design feature makes the two
                        boats 'similar'? Are YOU the final judge in making this
                        determination? Or might the people for whom I'm doing
                        these tests have some say in this matter? After all, I am
                        doing the tests for them, not you, so perhaps their
                        priorities and opinions should be considered here?

                        I already explained to John Kohnen and everyone else that
                        these tests are designed to prove which hull is more fuel
                        efficient. That's all these tests are about, and anything
                        you or John or anyone else say to try to make shoal draft
                        part of the equation is not going to change things. Shoal
                        draft may be important to some of you, but it is not
                        important to the folks who want a simple and
                        straightforward answer to the question these tests are
                        designed to answer.

                        So ...

                        If you have some factual evidence that clearly proves which
                        hull is more efficiently driven, I encourage you to post
                        it. But if all you have is theories and assumptions, I
                        would like to ask you to please be a little more 'open
                        minded' and consider the possibility that other people are
                        interested in learning the answer to this particular
                        question, regardless of whether or not you personally think
                        you know the answer yourself.

                        I fail to understand what's so hard to understand about this
                        scenario anyways, so let me use John Kohnen's example in my
                        next post to illustrate the situation in a simple
                        manner ...

                        Sincerely,
                        Ken Grome
                        Bagacay Boatworks
                        www.bagacayboatworks.com

                        P.S. Please stop calling me names. I may very well be a
                        twit for all I know, but whether I am or not, I think name
                        calling is something we as adults should be willing to
                        refrain from in a respectful online discussion.






                        > "Some of us simply want to know -- for a fact -- whether
                        > the Atkin boats are more or less fuel efficient than the
                        > others."
                        >
                        > Atkin designed power boats, sail boats, and row boats.
                        > Gee, which one of these is the most fuel efficient. Well,
                        > some would say a sailboat - but what about when there's
                        > no wind. Some would say a row boat, but one has to take
                        > into account the food consumed by the "rower". Etc.
                        >
                        > Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid comparison is
                        > by comparing similar designs. Tunnel stern and Seabright
                        > skiff are NOT similar designs. Neither is a Seabright
                        > skiff and a Poulsbo. Nor is one of the Tolman boats!
                        > You're a boat builder. You know that. Stop being such a
                        > twit.
                        >
                        > Ron Fossum
                      • Kenneth Grome
                        Hi John, ... Okay, let s use this example because it s an easy one that should help you to understand the situation a little ... It really doesn t matter
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          better:


                          > 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?

                          Simple:

                          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?

                          Sincerely,
                          Ken Grome
                          Bagacay Boatworks
                          www.bagacayboatworks.com







                          > <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?
                          > > ...
                        • Kenneth Grome
                          Hi Lon, I am very familiar with the Atkin Seabright skiffs on the website, but thanks for posting the links since it makes them easy for others to find them. I
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Lon,

                            I am very familiar with the Atkin Seabright skiffs on the
                            website, but thanks for posting the links since it makes
                            them easy for others to find them.

                            I guess you are "assuming" that the tunnel-stern boats are
                            less efficient than the others based only on the figures
                            posted on the website, is this correct? Or do you have
                            factual evidence to support your conclusions?

                            In my opinion those figures you pulled off the Atkin website
                            are theoretical, not factual, and none of the folks who are
                            seeking the answers to my tests will accept those numbers
                            either. Besides, I'm talking about two hulls optimized for
                            15 knots, and there is no way to know if Atkin optimized
                            the hulls you mentioned for any particular speed -- or if
                            they were optimized for anything else for that matter.

                            In my opinion as well as the opinions of others, it is
                            possible that the tunnel-stern version traps some of the
                            moving, energy-filled boundary layer water under the hull,
                            then it re-uses this trapped energy by funneling it toward
                            the propeller where it is further accelerated. The
                            non-tunnel-stern versions simply let this energy-filled
                            boundary layer water drift away, and the energy it already
                            contains is basically wasted.

                            Although this is just a theory,it clearly supports the
                            possibility that the tunnel-stern boats may be more
                            efficient than the others. This is why, until I see some
                            actual evidence one way or the other, I simply cannot
                            accept yours or John Kohnen's assumptions.

                            Regardless of which Seabright hull versions are more or less
                            efficient than the others, no tests have been done to
                            compare Seabright hulls with non-Seabright hulls as far as
                            I know. So perhaps I still have a valid reason to run my
                            own tests and learn the facts about the relative
                            efficiencies of these two hulls?

                            :)

                            Sincerely,
                            Ken Grome
                            Bagacay Boatworks
                            www.bagacayboatworks.com






                            > The Atkin Seabright Skiff Tunnel hulls were designed
                            > for inboard use in shallow waters, Atkin also designed
                            > Seabright Skiffs that were not tunnel hull that did
                            > not sacrifice performance for shallow draft, below are
                            > two seabright skiffs about the same width and beam one
                            > tunnel hull (shallow draft and the other slightly
                            > deeper draft (5-1/2") but it requires less than half
                            > the horse power to achieve greater speed.
                            >
                            > Heron Seabright Tunnel hull
                            > LOA 17 WL 16'-7" beam 5'-5" draft 6" 25hp 17MPH
                            > http://tinyurl.com/5rzo2o
                            > http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Utilities/Heron.html
                            >
                            > Happy Clam Seabright Hull
                            > LOA 17 WL 16 beam 5'6" draft 11-1/2 10HP speed 20mph
                            > http://tinyurl.com/345atw
                            >
                            > So there it is
                            > Lon
                          • Ronald A. Fossum
                            My sincere apologies Ken. I truly misunderstood you. To use my apples and oranges test - and I do not mean this humorously - you really want to test apples
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 30, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              My sincere apologies Ken. I truly misunderstood you. To use
                              my "apples and oranges" test - and I do not mean this humorously -
                              you really want to test apples and oranges to see which is better.
                              OK. I was homeing in more on the concept of testing similar, not dis-
                              similar hull designs. I just didn't understand a purpose in looking
                              for a comparison in fuel efficiency between significantly different
                              hul designs - but I can see the value.

                              Ron Fossum


                              --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome
                              <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi Ron,
                              >
                              > > Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid
                              > > comparison is by comparing similar designs.
                              >
                              > For the sake of argument let's say I agree with this
                              > position. The next question is:
                              >
                              > Who gets to determine which design feature makes the two
                              > boats 'similar'? Are YOU the final judge in making this
                              > determination? Or might the people for whom I'm doing
                              > these tests have some say in this matter? After all, I am
                              > doing the tests for them, not you, so perhaps their
                              > priorities and opinions should be considered here?
                              >
                              > I already explained to John Kohnen and everyone else that
                              > these tests are designed to prove which hull is more fuel
                              > efficient. That's all these tests are about, and anything
                              > you or John or anyone else say to try to make shoal draft
                              > part of the equation is not going to change things. Shoal
                              > draft may be important to some of you, but it is not
                              > important to the folks who want a simple and
                              > straightforward answer to the question these tests are
                              > designed to answer.
                              >
                              > So ...
                              >
                              > If you have some factual evidence that clearly proves which
                              > hull is more efficiently driven, I encourage you to post
                              > it. But if all you have is theories and assumptions, I
                              > would like to ask you to please be a little more 'open
                              > minded' and consider the possibility that other people are
                              > interested in learning the answer to this particular
                              > question, regardless of whether or not you personally think
                              > you know the answer yourself.
                              >
                              > I fail to understand what's so hard to understand about this
                              > scenario anyways, so let me use John Kohnen's example in my
                              > next post to illustrate the situation in a simple
                              > manner ...
                              >
                              > Sincerely,
                              > Ken Grome
                              > Bagacay Boatworks
                              > www.bagacayboatworks.com
                              >
                              > P.S. Please stop calling me names. I may very well be a
                              > twit for all I know, but whether I am or not, I think name
                              > calling is something we as adults should be willing to
                              > refrain from in a respectful online discussion.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > "Some of us simply want to know -- for a fact -- whether
                              > > the Atkin boats are more or less fuel efficient than the
                              > > others."
                              > >
                              > > Atkin designed power boats, sail boats, and row boats.
                              > > Gee, which one of these is the most fuel efficient. Well,
                              > > some would say a sailboat - but what about when there's
                              > > no wind. Some would say a row boat, but one has to take
                              > > into account the food consumed by the "rower". Etc.
                              > >
                              > > Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid comparison is
                              > > by comparing similar designs. Tunnel stern and Seabright
                              > > skiff are NOT similar designs. Neither is a Seabright
                              > > skiff and a Poulsbo. Nor is one of the Tolman boats!
                              > > You're a boat builder. You know that. Stop being such a
                              > > twit.
                              > >
                              > > Ron Fossum
                              >
                            • adharvey2
                              What the ...... hey, how did I get in the Wooden Boat forum?
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 30, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                What the ...... hey, how did I get in the "Wooden Boat" forum?
                                .....must have.... clicked wrong .....


                                --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald A. Fossum" <artemis@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > My sincere apologies Ken. I truly misunderstood you. To use
                                > my "apples and oranges" test - and I do not mean this humorously -
                                > you really want to test apples and oranges to see which is better.
                                > OK. I was homeing in more on the concept of testing similar, not dis-
                                > similar hull designs. I just didn't understand a purpose in looking
                                > for a comparison in fuel efficiency between significantly different
                                > hul designs - but I can see the value.
                                >
                                > Ron Fossum
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome
                                > <bagacayboatworks@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Hi Ron,
                                > >
                                > > > Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid
                                > > > comparison is by comparing similar designs.
                                > >
                                > > For the sake of argument let's say I agree with this
                                > > position. The next question is:
                                > >
                                > > Who gets to determine which design feature makes the two
                                > > boats 'similar'? Are YOU the final judge in making this
                                > > determination? Or might the people for whom I'm doing
                                > > these tests have some say in this matter? After all, I am
                                > > doing the tests for them, not you, so perhaps their
                                > > priorities and opinions should be considered here?
                                > >
                                > > I already explained to John Kohnen and everyone else that
                                > > these tests are designed to prove which hull is more fuel
                                > > efficient. That's all these tests are about, and anything
                                > > you or John or anyone else say to try to make shoal draft
                                > > part of the equation is not going to change things. Shoal
                                > > draft may be important to some of you, but it is not
                                > > important to the folks who want a simple and
                                > > straightforward answer to the question these tests are
                                > > designed to answer.
                                > >
                                > > So ...
                                > >
                                > > If you have some factual evidence that clearly proves which
                                > > hull is more efficiently driven, I encourage you to post
                                > > it. But if all you have is theories and assumptions, I
                                > > would like to ask you to please be a little more 'open
                                > > minded' and consider the possibility that other people are
                                > > interested in learning the answer to this particular
                                > > question, regardless of whether or not you personally think
                                > > you know the answer yourself.
                                > >
                                > > I fail to understand what's so hard to understand about this
                                > > scenario anyways, so let me use John Kohnen's example in my
                                > > next post to illustrate the situation in a simple
                                > > manner ...
                                > >
                                > > Sincerely,
                                > > Ken Grome
                                > > Bagacay Boatworks
                                > > www.bagacayboatworks.com
                                > >
                                > > P.S. Please stop calling me names. I may very well be a
                                > > twit for all I know, but whether I am or not, I think name
                                > > calling is something we as adults should be willing to
                                > > refrain from in a respectful online discussion.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > > "Some of us simply want to know -- for a fact -- whether
                                > > > the Atkin boats are more or less fuel efficient than the
                                > > > others."
                                > > >
                                > > > Atkin designed power boats, sail boats, and row boats.
                                > > > Gee, which one of these is the most fuel efficient. Well,
                                > > > some would say a sailboat - but what about when there's
                                > > > no wind. Some would say a row boat, but one has to take
                                > > > into account the food consumed by the "rower". Etc.
                                > > >
                                > > > Duh Ken, the only way one can make a valid comparison is
                                > > > by comparing similar designs. Tunnel stern and Seabright
                                > > > skiff are NOT similar designs. Neither is a Seabright
                                > > > skiff and a Poulsbo. Nor is one of the Tolman boats!
                                > > > You're a boat builder. You know that. Stop being such a
                                > > > twit.
                                > > >
                                > > > Ron Fossum
                                > >
                                >
                              • Kenneth Grome
                                Hi Ron, Thanks for understanding my efforts. I should have thanked you before since you were the only person to post something positive, but I was too busy
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 30, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Ron,

                                  Thanks for understanding my efforts. I should have thanked
                                  you before since you were the only person to post something
                                  positive, but I was too busy trying to explain things a
                                  second or third time to others -- probably a huge waste of
                                  time anyways.

                                  Oh well, live and learn ... :)

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Ken Grome
                                  Bagacay Boatworks
                                  www.bagacayboatworks.com





                                  > Ken, congratulations on your efforts to insert some facts
                                  > into the discussion.
                                  >
                                  > I have noticed quite a few individuals being twits and
                                  > making negative comments regarding your proposed quest,
                                  > but these same individuals are (mostly) quite stingy with
                                  > any facts backing up their various claims.
                                  >
                                  > To all: The renewed popularity of Rescue Minor and it's
                                  > efficiency statements have raised the question regarding
                                  > it's hull design and efficiency. Ken has proposed a test
                                  > to put facts on the table regarding this, and is putting
                                  > his money (and time and effort) where his mouth is. If
                                  > you want to make negative comments about his test, what
                                  > are you doing to replace it?
                                  >
                                  > Boating is often an emotional endeavor, and what you as
                                  > an individual "like" can be quite important. Many
                                  > would-be boaters, however, are limited in funds; it takes
                                  > real money to buy wood, steel, gas, and sailcloth, and it
                                  > would be nice to have a good idea what you are getting
                                  > before you pay the price.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  > Regards,
                                  > RonB
                                • windmill4048
                                  ... Well, let me add a little hard data to this discussion. I ve operated a Rescue Minor since last August, many hours of operation. At 10 kts, 2,300 RPM the
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 31, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome
                                    <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hi Ron,
                                    >
                                    > Thanks for understanding my efforts. I should have thanked
                                    > you before since you were the only person to post something
                                    > positive, but I was too busy trying to explain things a
                                    > second or third time to others -- probably a huge waste of
                                    > time anyways.
                                    >
                                    > Oh well, live and learn ... :)
                                    >
                                    > Sincerely,
                                    > Ken Grome
                                    > Bagacay Boatworks
                                    > www.bagacayboatworks.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > Ken, congratulations on your efforts to insert some facts
                                    > > into the discussion.
                                    > >
                                    > > I have noticed quite a few individuals being twits and
                                    > > making negative comments regarding your proposed quest,
                                    > > but these same individuals are (mostly) quite stingy with
                                    > > any facts backing up their various claims.
                                    > >
                                    > > To all: The renewed popularity of Rescue Minor and it's
                                    > > efficiency statements have raised the question regarding
                                    > > it's hull design and efficiency. Ken has proposed a test
                                    > > to put facts on the table regarding this, and is putting
                                    > > his money (and time and effort) where his mouth is. If
                                    > > you want to make negative comments about his test, what
                                    > > are you doing to replace it?
                                    > >
                                    > > Boating is often an emotional endeavor, and what you as
                                    > > an individual "like" can be quite important. Many
                                    > > would-be boaters, however, are limited in funds; it takes
                                    > > real money to buy wood, steel, gas, and sailcloth, and it
                                    > > would be nice to have a good idea what you are getting
                                    > > before you pay the price.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --
                                    > > Regards,
                                    > > RonB
                                    >


                                    Well, let me add a little hard data to this discussion.

                                    I've operated a Rescue Minor since last August, many hours of
                                    operation.

                                    At 10 kts, 2,300 RPM the fuel consumption is between .5 and .62 GPH.
                                    I consider that to be sort of efficient and think you'd be hard
                                    pressed to find a boat that would do much better unless it was
                                    purpose built just for fuel efficiency.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.