63381Re: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?
- Mar 31, 2010On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Susanne@... <philbolger@...> wrote:
On the other hand, after lengthy reflection, observation, study of for instance cruising/racing multis, Phil did not like having shape and thus every other aspect of hull- and layout-design dictated by the inherently compromize-based shape of the 'master-panel':
- Many CC tris for instance end up quite deep and still are quite limited in 3+season live-aboard carrying capacity.
I agree that this appears to be the heart of the issue, and it comes back to Phil's prioritization of parsimony in his design philosophy, a methodology we now see applied to nearly all modern, large cargo carriers. It takes a box to provide maximum internal usable volume, while accepting a small increase in hydrodynamic resistance. When mapped out on a logistic input/output curve, this design philosophy provides the greatest utility and functionality at the lowest cost and effort. It's what I call the 80% solution: mapped between values of 0 and 1, the greatest return on the least input comes in at about 0.8 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalised_logistic_function for a short description).
I once heard Constant Camber described as the process of making your own plywood, at high expense and with the liberal use of epoxy. It does produce elegantly curved, strong, light weight hulls and certainly has its place. But I can appreciate that Phil would not be attracted to its use.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>