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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.