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

Re: [AtkinBoats] Testing Billy Atkin's performance as stated by Atkin & Co

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